Presidential Candidates’ Debate Politeness Examined

Newswise — There's "nothing to encourage presidential candidates to get uglier" in their debates, according to a new book by three members of Central Michigan University's communication faculty.

"Politeness in Presidential Debates: Shaping Political Face in Campaign Debates from 1960 to 2004" by CMU communication and dramatic arts assistant professor Bill Dailey, professor and forensics director Ed Hinck, and professor Shelly Hinck takes a close look at what presidential candidates said in debates, how they said it and how their communication choices may have affected the success of their bids for the White House.

To complete their research, the three professors assessed audience responses to the 2000 and 2004 debates and drew conclusions regarding the effects of polite and not-so-polite debate tactics, including an initial assessment that politeness played a role in shaping candidates' images. The group then reviewed transcripts of 92 presidential and vice presidential debates from 1960 to 2004 and coded their contents according to a system adapted from other research.

The research found that "candidates who use policy- or issue-oriented attacks appear to win more (elections), especially in the case of challengers," said Dailey.

But that hasn't stopped candidates from getting personal with their comments. In fact, Dailey said, the use of personal attacks has increased sharply through the decades, with approximately 60 percent of debate remarks being personal in 1960 as compared to 90 percent in 2004.

"Bill pulled out some absolutely fascinating findings regarding what counts as good debate and bad debate for democracy," said Ed Hinck.

Published by Rowman & Littlefield, "Politeness in Presidential Debates" is available in several Web locations: from Internet retailer Amazon.com, from Barnes & Noble's online store at http://www.bn.com and on the publisher's Web site at http://www.rowmanlittlefield.com.

According to the publisher, the book "analyzes politeness strategies in presidential and vice presidential debates from 1960 to 2004. After an introduction to politeness theory and how to apply it to debates, the authors summarize each candidate's politeness strategies, relate them to the historical context of the appropriate campaign, and consider them in relation to other studies conducted on the debates. This well-researched book ends with implications for debate planners, politicians, citizens and scholars, including an insightful chapter on the electorate's ideal debate."