By Robert C. Rowland
Donald Trump shattered norms about how presidential candidates and presidents govern and talk. In my book The Rhetoric of Donald Trump: Nationalist Populism and American Democracy, I explain how candidate and then President Trump used appeals to nationalist populism to build a huge political movement, despite violating every norm for presidential talk and decorum.
He brutally attacked political enemies, violated norms by referring to Haiti as a “shithole country,” along with countless other comments designed to create fear and hatred of groups other than white working-class Americans, and according to fact checkers regularly made false statements. In an earlier time in American politics, all of these acts of norm violation would have produced so much backlash that his political career would have ended. While Trump’s norm violations did produce great backlash, they also inspired a political movement that completed a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. The party of Reagan and Eisenhower was no more; it was Trump’s GOP.
A New Era of Breaking Norms in Presidential Debates
One place that Trump’s norm violations were especially evident was in presidential debates. Prior to 2016, relatively clear norms defined how the candidates in presidential debates talked and behaved. Those norms required the candidates to be polite toward their opponent, lay out a clear agenda providing at least some detail on how that agenda would work along with supporting evidence for the agenda, and not present outright falsehoods.
While presidential debates have been extremely important moments in every campaign, as long as candidates lived up to the norms I have described, they rarely produced a dramatic shift in the race. Even in cases where a candidate had what was perceived to be a weak debate performance, but without norm violation, as happened with Barack Obama in 2012, in the weeks after that debate, including two additional debates, the race moved back to its initial trajectory, leading to a solid win for Obama.
Political Backlash for Breaking Debate Norms
Debates fundamentally shifted campaigns when one of two things occurred. In cases where there was a gaffe, a violation of norms about politeness or laying out an agenda or telling the truth, the gaffe resulted in a shift in the race. In a 1976 debate against Jimmy Carter, President Gerald Ford claimed that “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration.” Since it was obvious to all that the Soviets in fact dominated Eastern Europe, this statement was perceived as a major gaffe indicating that Ford didn’t really understand the Soviet threat. The gaffe helped shift the race in Carter’s favor.
Violations of rules of decorum in debates also may have harmed the campaigns of George H. W. Bush in 1992 and Al Gore in 2000. When Bush checked his watch during a debate, some felt that he was rude or not interested in the debate. There was a similar negative reaction when Al Gore loudly sighed while George W. Bush was speaking. Gore’s sighs, which reflected his disdain for what Bush was saying, were widely perceived as disrespectful, shifting the race in favor of Bush.
The other cases in which debates shifted the trajectory of campaigns were when less experienced candidates used a debate to demonstrate that they had a very clear agenda and were up to the demands of the presidency. Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Barack Obama in 2008 used strong debate performances to put to rest doubts about their capacity to govern. Although the public opinion record is spotty about the 1960 campaign, something similar may have occurred in the Kennedy-Nixon debates, aiding Kennedy’s election.
Analysis of the First Harris v. Trump Debate
In 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump obliterated the norms that governed presidential debates. He interrupted his opponent’s answers, cited little evidence, made many incoherent statements, and according to fact checkers presented a huge number of false claims. Despite this norm violation, he won a close election in 2016 and lost an equally close election in 2020. As I argued in my book, it seems quite likely that he would have won again in 2020 if the pandemic had not occurred.
I’ve thought a lot about the norms that used to govern presidential debates in reflecting on the debate between Trump and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris last week. As in 2016 and 2020, Trump failed to lay out a clear agenda, almost never cited evidence in support of claims, presented a number of personal attacks on Harris and other Democrats, and made many outlandish claims that fact checkers immediately debunked.
To take only one example, dogs and cats in Ohio have little to fear from undocumented immigrants invading their backyards. In contrast, while Harris often didn’t provide a great many details in discussing specific policies, she laid out a coherent agenda and otherwise lived up to historical political debate norms. To this point, the snap polls, analyses of social media, and commentary all indicate that she won an overwhelming victory. My own research supports that judgment. Based on the same standards that led me to conclude that Reagan demolished Carter in the single 1980 debate, I think Harris did the same thing to Trump.
How Will This Affect Trump’s Campaign?
In my book, I write about how Trump used norm violation to demonstrate both strength and authenticity to his supporters. He told them that they could trust and rely on him because he didn’t talk or behave like other candidates. That message has had great power for his core group of supporters who treat him with almost religious adoration. But there is always a risk with a strategy of demonstrating authenticity with norm violation that pushing that violation too far will undercut the message. Violating norms can be seen as proof of authenticity, but if taken too far it can lead to ridicule, dealing a devastating blow to someone who has styled himself as the strongman protector of ordinary people.
It is not clear yet whether Trump’s debate performance finally went too far, but there are signs that it may have done so. Notably, if he thought the debate had been a victory, there is no doubt that he would have demanded many additional debates. It is telling that he has taken the opposite approach. It is important to remember that it would not take much to shift the presidential race decisively away from Trump toward Harris. If that occurs, we may remember the debate last week as the moment that the norms for presidential talk finally mattered.
Find this title and more in our Election Season Book Sale. Get 50% off select political titles from September 9th to November 9th, 2024.
