- Top Stories
- Knowledgebase
- Speakers
- Conferences
- Multimedia
- Research News
- Media Mentions
- Stanford Business Magazine
- February 2009
- Features
- Knowledge Network
- Columns
- Class Notes
- Past Issues
- Search Stanford Business
Communication
Lessons from Presidential Debates
By JD Schramm
THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES seemed a perfect vehicle for getting GSB students to focus on the power and pitfalls of their own communication. Using the three presidential and one vice presidential debates as our primary “text,” David Demarest, Stanford’s vice president for public affairs, and I asked students to analyze the exchanges for key elements of successful communication.
Before coming to Stanford Demarest worked for George H. W. Bush as communications director in the 1988 campaign and then for four years in the White House. In our half-quarter elective, called Political Communication, we sought to blend his practical experience in politics with my knowledge of communication theory. Both theory and practice suggest that communicating to large, diverse audiences requires discipline, flexibility, honesty, and rehearsal to make sure the points you want to make are actually what listeners take away.
We were a bit disappointed that the debates didn’t provide the kind of defining moments of some past candidates’ debates. We waited for a sound bite like Lloyd Bentsen’s “You’re no JFK” or a gaffe like Gerald Ford’s adamant statement in 1976 that Poland was not under Communist rule. We hoped for a turn of phrase like Ronald Reagan’s famous “There you go again” or even a moderator’s show-stopping question like Bernard Shaw’s question to Michael Dukakis of how he’d respond if his wife, Kitty, was raped and killed. By our measure none of those classic debate moments emerged this year.
We witnessed some interesting elements, however, from Governor Sarah Palin’s winks to Senators John McCain’s and Barak Obama’s 26 mentions of Joe the Plumber in the final debate. And, like a tasty dessert at the end of a good meal, we watched and analyzed the “debate after the debate” when both Obama and McCain appeared in good humor at the Al Smith Dinner in New York the night after their third and final debate. We began the class with nearly one-fourth of the students undecided about who they’d cast a vote for, and ended with all having reached a decision—84 percent opting for President Obama.
It would have been easy to simply use the debates as entertainment or for current events discussion. Instead we challenged the students to consider the debates a prism through which they could reflect on their own communication abilities and apply lessons to their own lives. In their final papers, they applied their learning to their careers.
“Focused on my startup, I entered my second year with a plan to only take classes that are related to this project,” wrote one young man, who, nevertheless, broke his rule for our course and found he “learned communication techniques that would help me with the startup.” He and his partners had blown their first meeting with potential partners for a pilot of their idea. “Unlike the first meeting where we came off as young, cocky know-it-alls, we approached the second meeting like teammates rather than salesmen. Together we explored the problem, understanding their needs to customize a solution. We built trust and connected; we were able to construct a cohesive narrative through which we presented our technology and offered our results.”
A young woman discussed how she would communicate with government leaders when she returns to Bangladesh and tries to work for social progress. “This election and this class have taught me to stay true to myself in my future endeavors, to win on my own terms, and last, but certainly not least, to use effective communication,” she wrote.
Another student, bound for private equity, compared the setting of a presidential debate to his more likely role “presenting to management, limited partners, and colleagues on the appropriate leverage level for a cyclical business.” In both cases, he said, the salient lessons are the same: “Be myself, come prepared, spin a good narrative, and demonstrate flexibility and thoughtfulness.”
There could be some students in this class who will someday run for office, but more likely, they will use the lessons from the debates to improve their communities and companies by being authentic, prepared, flexible, and compelling, all elements we purposefully designed as a part of this course’s inaugural run. Admittedly as a member of the faculty there are some drawbacks to teaching with presidential debates as your text; I now have to wait four years for another opportunity.
JD Schramm is a senior lecturer in management who leads the Critical Analytical Thinking Writing Program and teaches electives on oral and written communication topics.
PDF Version