THEY BOTH LOST

I was disappointed. I had much higher expectations for the first presidential debate, but the reality proved very disappointing. It did not seem professional for either person— to talk over and interrupt someone when that person has the opportunity to talk is juvenile. That’s what immature people who have not learned any social graces does. Trump started it and Biden reacted in kind. It was not professional also in the name calling which Biden most engaged in calling the President a liar, a racist, and a clown and told him, “man shut up.” Trump only did it once returning the label of liar.

It was also not professional in all of the personal insults. Most of the time the personal references had nothing to do with the question that was put forth. And when exchanges get personal like that, it is the cognitive fallacy of ad hominen — “to the person” that is, an attack on the person’s position by attacking the person’s character. Professional communicators do not do that. And if they do, they catch themselves, apologize and back up.

I was disappointed in the low quality of information. It sounded like two commercials— each one running with his talking points to his fans. There was no searching for truth and seeking to understand the other. The presentations were full of platitudes and half-truths— on both sides. In terms of achieving the status of a dialogue— it failed completely. It was more a case of yelling at each other with insults and low level sarcasms.

In a genuine dialogue, people stop, step back and examine their thinking. They are willing to look at their assumptions and presuppositions. But none of that happened. There was hardly a half-second space between exchanges— not the kind of context for seeking to present different views in an understandable way.

There were a few questions asked of each— Biden simply refused to answer three or four questions directly and changed the subject. Trump also could have provided a direct answer, but went off on side issues.

What was good and highly commendatory was Chris Wallace’s performance. He provided excellent open-ended questions that allowed each man lots of room for responding. He followed up and reminded them of the question when they got off. He reminded both of the rules, pleased with them to follow the rules, and even held each accountable to talking over when they did. I don’t know how much he had to drink after that to calm his nerves(!) — or if he could sleep last night, but he did a great job in spite of the two juveniles going at it.

Both need to learn how to communicate in a professional way— both need some basic NLP training, some training in listening before responding, some skills in framing. Both need my

books Communication Magic and Unleashing Leadership. If you talk to them today, tell them I’ll send them the books at my expense. Or drop the idea that they might want to contact a Meta- Coach— we have nearly 4,000 world-wide who would be fully qualified.

[This series on Political Thinking represents my thinking, and mine alone. It does not necessarily represent Neuro-Semantics which is a psychological model. You can reach me at [email protected] L. Michael Hall, Ph.D. For the book Political Coaching, see the link — www.neurosemantics.com/political-coaching/ ]

Political Coaching is now in PDF format on The Shop https://www.neurosemantics.com/shop/page/3/