What is especially troubling to me is the obviously and blatantly misleading statements coming from one side of the campaign. Donald Trump’s surrogates have the unenviable task of answering tough questions from the media and the electorate. Of course, the same can be said of any political campaign. But I suspect that many people would acknowledge that, by necessity, more explaining and excusing is being done on the Trump side. I say by necessity, due to the steady stream of outlandish statements made by their boss, along with the inevitable vetting being done regarding his past history. New revelations crop up almost daily, and thus more questions.
Answering tough questions requires skill and tools which the public relations industry have honed over many years. PR consultant Kim Harrison has a list of 8 ways to deflect tough interview questions. The way he outlined and explained them was really enlightening, and most are readily recognizable.
“Some politicians and top managers have mastered the art of avoiding answers to difficult media interview questions. Others haven’t. Dodging nasty questions can be achieved with some reasonable preparation and practice. Here are some smart ways you can deal with tough questions:
1. Acknowledge the question without answering it. (“That’s a good question, and I think we should consider the implications by looking at…” [avoiding an answer].)
2. Ignore the question completely. However, this is a high-risk approach because the interviewer may repeat the question or reword it slightly to return to the subject. This tends to make the interviewee look evasive.
3. Question the question.
(a) Request clarification or further information about the question. This works as a delaying tactic in a short interview.
(b) Reflect the question back to the interviewer (“Why do you ask me that?”). Some years ago an interviewer was floored by UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, when in a famous response to “Some people are saying you are too autocratic,” she said “Name some of them.” The interviewer was caught by surprise and wasn’t able to think of a suitable response, which made him look a bit silly.
4. Attack the question, on the basis of:
(a) The question fails to tackle the important issue.
(b) The question is based on a false assumption.
(c) The question is factually inaccurate.
(d) The question is too personal or objectionable.
5. Decline to answer. Refuse to answer on the basis that it is not your area of responsibility. (“You will have to ask [name, or ‘someone else’] about that because I’m not involved at all in that part of the situation.”)
6. Give an incomplete answer.
(a) Partial answer.
(b) Start to answer but change the subject.
(c) Negative answer. You state what won’t happen instead of what will happen.
7. State or imply the question has already been answered (“I’m not going to go over old ground.”)
8. Defer to the will of others. Refer to the will of constituents or shareholders etc and imply you are doing your duty by complying with their will.”
Deflection is a frequently-used method of the Trump campaign surrogates. Ask them about their boss not releasing his taxes, and they deflect to Hillary’s e-mails. (They know that people aren’t as accepting of the audit excuse any longer.) Ask them about his treatment of women, and they deflect to Hillary’s reactions at the time of her husband’s infidelities in the mid-‘90s. Recently, one of his favorite surrogates utilized several deflection tools when asked about some of his published credentials, and then, using one more, walked out of the interview.
A very adept deflector is Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s campaign manager. She has been asked often about the birther issue. This article speaks volumes about the use of deflection. I could provide many more examples, but she appears often on the cable channels and I invite you to make a game out of identifying her examples of deflection. She is a master.
Projection is, I believe, a uniquely Republican trait as it relates to expressing their arguments. Paul Waldman, writing in The American Prospect, a liberal publication, offered this explanation in 2012:
“There has seldom been a clearer political case of what psychologists call ‘projection', the propensity to ascribe to someone else one's own thoughts, feelings, and sins. It's true that we are in a polarized moment, and what is called nastiness often turns out to be genuine substantive differences between parties that represent distinct groups of Americans. But Republicans have been, shall we say, vigorous in their opposition to this president, both completely unified and unrestrained in their criticism. Yet they remain convinced that Barack Obama is the one who bears responsibility for whatever division has been sown.
“…for instance, one often hears Republicans claim that the Affordable Care Act was ‘rammed through’ Congress without Republican support. You might recall that in fact the ACA went through over a year of hearings, negotiations, conferences, health care summits, endless efforts to cajole and encourage and beg and plead for Republican support, before those Republicans successfully kept every last one of their troops in line to vote against it. But as on so many issues, all of that is washed from the story, leaving only Barack Obama and his divisive actions.”
Blaming Obama for fomenting class warfare is another example of projection. Jonathan Weiler wrote in 2011,
“…when President Obama outlined his proposals last week for deficit reduction, he said he wanted to require Americans making more than $1 million a year to pay federal income taxes at a higher minimum rate than a significant chunk of millionaires are now paying. In the context of deficit reduction, one intent of this so-called Buffett rule (since Warren Buffett, who has pointed out that he pays federal income tax at a lower rate than does his secretary, is an advocate of the proposal) is to recognize that the growing gap between the rich and the rest needs to be reflected in greater shared sacrifice.
“Republican leaders responded to the Buffett rule by screaming bloody murder over this intolerable foray into ‘class warfare’. One might be puzzled by this attack. The GOP has engaged in a 30-year political campaign that has contributed substantially to a massive shift in wealth toward a tiny sliver at the top, while increasing the vulnerability of a vastly larger number of Americans.”
A notable story from the last presidential race was the behavior of Karl Rove on election night in 2012, which I believe illustrates another Republican trait- delusion. Rove’s own network was calling the election for President Obama, but Rove was convinced otherwise based on his belief that Ohio would turn to Romney.
Now we have Trump surrogates claiming confidently that their campaign Is in “great shape” and “doing well”, based on polls after the first presidential debate. Their belief that Trump had “won” was based on a number of unscientific computer fan-style polls run immediately after. Even when the results of the scientific polls showed a significant win for Secretary Clinton, the same surrogates were still claiming victory.
Even the anti-Trump forces have succumbed to delusion, believing that Secretary Clinton would be losing badly to any of the other 16 Republican primary candidates. The implication is that leaving the Trump phenomenon aside, the GOP is essentially in healthy shape. But how do you ignore the notion that arguably they are responsible for Trump as nominee.
I have to wonder- if you don’t prepare for a debate, and then believe that you won despite that, why would you make changes. I believe that the country would be better off with two prepared and well-informed candidates making their case to the American people.
D. Norman
Deflection is a frequently-used method of the Trump campaign surrogates. Ask them about their boss not releasing his taxes, and they deflect to Hillary’s e-mails. (They know that people aren’t as accepting of the audit excuse any longer.) Ask them about his treatment of women, and they deflect to Hillary’s reactions at the time of her husband’s infidelities in the mid-‘90s. Recently, one of his favorite surrogates utilized several deflection tools when asked about some of his published credentials, and then, using one more, walked out of the interview.
A very adept deflector is Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s campaign manager. She has been asked often about the birther issue. This article speaks volumes about the use of deflection. I could provide many more examples, but she appears often on the cable channels and I invite you to make a game out of identifying her examples of deflection. She is a master.
Projection is, I believe, a uniquely Republican trait as it relates to expressing their arguments. Paul Waldman, writing in The American Prospect, a liberal publication, offered this explanation in 2012:
“There has seldom been a clearer political case of what psychologists call ‘projection', the propensity to ascribe to someone else one's own thoughts, feelings, and sins. It's true that we are in a polarized moment, and what is called nastiness often turns out to be genuine substantive differences between parties that represent distinct groups of Americans. But Republicans have been, shall we say, vigorous in their opposition to this president, both completely unified and unrestrained in their criticism. Yet they remain convinced that Barack Obama is the one who bears responsibility for whatever division has been sown.
“…for instance, one often hears Republicans claim that the Affordable Care Act was ‘rammed through’ Congress without Republican support. You might recall that in fact the ACA went through over a year of hearings, negotiations, conferences, health care summits, endless efforts to cajole and encourage and beg and plead for Republican support, before those Republicans successfully kept every last one of their troops in line to vote against it. But as on so many issues, all of that is washed from the story, leaving only Barack Obama and his divisive actions.”
Blaming Obama for fomenting class warfare is another example of projection. Jonathan Weiler wrote in 2011,
“…when President Obama outlined his proposals last week for deficit reduction, he said he wanted to require Americans making more than $1 million a year to pay federal income taxes at a higher minimum rate than a significant chunk of millionaires are now paying. In the context of deficit reduction, one intent of this so-called Buffett rule (since Warren Buffett, who has pointed out that he pays federal income tax at a lower rate than does his secretary, is an advocate of the proposal) is to recognize that the growing gap between the rich and the rest needs to be reflected in greater shared sacrifice.
“Republican leaders responded to the Buffett rule by screaming bloody murder over this intolerable foray into ‘class warfare’. One might be puzzled by this attack. The GOP has engaged in a 30-year political campaign that has contributed substantially to a massive shift in wealth toward a tiny sliver at the top, while increasing the vulnerability of a vastly larger number of Americans.”
A notable story from the last presidential race was the behavior of Karl Rove on election night in 2012, which I believe illustrates another Republican trait- delusion. Rove’s own network was calling the election for President Obama, but Rove was convinced otherwise based on his belief that Ohio would turn to Romney.
Now we have Trump surrogates claiming confidently that their campaign Is in “great shape” and “doing well”, based on polls after the first presidential debate. Their belief that Trump had “won” was based on a number of unscientific computer fan-style polls run immediately after. Even when the results of the scientific polls showed a significant win for Secretary Clinton, the same surrogates were still claiming victory.
Even the anti-Trump forces have succumbed to delusion, believing that Secretary Clinton would be losing badly to any of the other 16 Republican primary candidates. The implication is that leaving the Trump phenomenon aside, the GOP is essentially in healthy shape. But how do you ignore the notion that arguably they are responsible for Trump as nominee.
I have to wonder- if you don’t prepare for a debate, and then believe that you won despite that, why would you make changes. I believe that the country would be better off with two prepared and well-informed candidates making their case to the American people.
D. Norman
