The CLEAR Winner of Debate #1

A Rose By Any Other Name?

I just spent 90+ excruciating minutes gritting my teeth through what could be called “a debate” in name only. (Several people emailed and texted me mid-event using a variety of other far more colorful if professionally inappropriate labels that I can’t repeat here.)

A “debate” – at least by my definition – should be a passionate yet civil intellectual exchange of ideas. That is anything BUT what I just saw.

As Howard Newton insightfully observed, “tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy.”

That’s why, IMHO, the clear “winner” of the night was none other than: Chris Wallace.

What SHOULD "Winning" Look Like?

Remember: I’m a leadership communication coach, not a politician (or political). In all the leadership research on “executive presence,” there are several qualities that are universally recognized as essential, and Wallace did a great job of embodying many of them. For example:

1. ?Showing technical/content expertise. Wallace was prepared: He knew his facts and statistics, and was ready to freely cite specific details and examples as needed.
2. Speaking truth to power, even if it will make you unpopular or make them angry. Wallace asked challenging questions to both candidates, did his best to stop the constant interruptions, redirected answers when the candidates went too far off topic, and occasionally contradicted them when they made statements that were contrary to the facts as he understood them, knowing that he would get a lot of resistance from two very powerful men.
3. Demonstrating “grace under fire.” Wallace was firm and direct but always respectful, referred consistently to both candidates as “sir,” and never lost his cool, let his emotions take over, or used unprofessional or undignified language, no matter how much he probably desperately wanted to.
4. Using authoritative body language. No matter how exasperated he must have been, he refrained from rolling his eyes, folding or waving his arms, smirking, or any other nonverbal expressions of frustration and displeasure. (At least, not that the camera showed us!) He did, however, occasionally use gestures like standing up, and reaching out an open hand as if to gently but firmly insert himself into the conversation when words alone weren’t working.
5. Using a confident, declarative vocal tone. While still being professionally respectful, his voice never wavered, and there was no trace of uncertainty or approval-seeking in the form of up-speak or vocal fry. His pace was measured and his volume was always in control – he even apologized when he consciously chose to raise his voice at one point, with the disclaimer that since both candidates were just yelling at each other, he felt he had no other choice, at least for that brief moment.

The alignment of his verbal, vocal and visual messaging cues projected credibility and trustworthiness, both of which are cornerstones of healthy leadership.

Should he have done even MORE to rein in the interruptions and keep the discussion focused and, well, useful? YES. Heck, I’m in favor of giving him a power switch to mute and unmute participants at his discretion, like the host of any Zoom meeting can do, as we’ve all more than amply experienced in the last six months or so. Wouldn’t THAT be refreshing…

But what about the Candidates -- did THEY Follow My Advice?

As for whether or not either of the actual candidates took my advice from yesterday's post… it almost doesn’t matter.

I said Joe Biden needed to get his messages into “tweetable-and-repeatable” sound bites, which he didn’t, but then again neither did Donald Trump this time… or at least, I don’t think either of them did, but really, who could tell when they spent the entire night talking over each other in unintelligible cacophony? Minus one point apiece.

I said Joe Biden would need to figure out a way not to get distracted and flustered knowing that Donald Trump would likely try to trip him up one way or another. To Biden’s credit, despite the president’s virtual carpet-bombing of interruptions and interjections the entire night, he managed to stay on his feet and not get tripped up or say anything that would come back to haunt him. That’s hardly a win; at best, it’s just a non-loss. Zero points added.

I also said Donald Trump would need to show some restraint and not let reality-tv-melodrama be his M.O. I’m sorry to say, this was an epic failure. The incessant, compulsive interruptions and all-but-refusing to let anyone – including the moderator – complete a sentence was actually worse than typical melodrama and antics. While Chris Wallace asked both candidates several times not to talk over each other, he had to explicitly single out President Trump several times for doing it so much more frequently. Minus one point for the president.

In the end, did we actually learn anything new about either person or platform? No.

Tonight was a perfect example of why American politics are turning into “rejection elections.” It’s hard in these moments – if you’re still undecided – to not roll your eyes in exasperation and resign yourself to the idea that your only option is to vote for the guy who disgusted you the least, if you can figure out who earns that dubious honor.

And that’s not what leadership is all about.

Wallace for president, anyone?