September 10th's Presidential Debate: Kamala Harris VS Donald Trump - A Detailed Discourse Analysis

Assignment 1 - Analysis 1 

Samantha Curmi 

B.A (Hons) in Journalism 

Year 3

This article explores the recent debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, hosted by ABC News during the 2024 presidential campaign (ABC News, 2024). 

Using discourse analysis, the moderators' and participants' goals, tense points in the discussion, nonverbal cues, and rhetorical devices employed throughout are examined. 

A close-up moment from the September 10th Presidential Debate (Adapted from: France 24).

 Agendas of the Moderators and Participants

As the debate's gatekeepers, the moderators sought to give each candidate a fair and impartial platform. In political discourse, moderators frequently act as mediators of power, according to Fairclough (1995), employing certain framing strategies to elicit in-depth responses. Their goal in this discussion was to make sure that complicated topics like immigration, the economy, and healthcare were covered in detail (ABC News, 2024). When questions about specifics were posed to each candidate, this balance was particularly clear.

Trump's agenda was largely devoted to restating his administration's accomplishments. His rhetorical approach echoed the tactic expounded by Lakoff (2004), wherein voter support is reinforced by framing accomplishments within easily understood narratives. Harris, on the other hand, prioritised future improvements while defending the actions of the Biden administration. Such discourse methods, according to Van Dijk (2008), frequently serve to generate credibility by associating the speaker with ongoing policy and social concerns.

Key Moments and Follow-ups

The issue on healthcare was a turning point in the argument. Trump's use of rhetorical approach when criticising the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was consistent with Entman's (1993) idea of framing, which holds that topics can be presented in a way that selectively emphasises certain points to affect the audience's interpretation of those points. Harris rebutted Trump's narrative that the Affordable Care Act was a failure by highlighting the advantages of increasing healthcare coverage. The candidates' attitudes to policy diverged sharply as a result.

Furthermore, the moderators' follow-up questions about immigration revealed significant differences in communication styles. Trump took a more defensive attitude, emphasizing national security and border control, a familiar approach used in conservative rhetoric to instill fear (Lakoff, 2004). Harris, on the other hand, focused her response on humanitarian ideals, which is consistent with Van Dijk's (2008) interpretation of social justice discourse. Her approach not only appealed to progressive voters, but also stressed empathy, establishing her as a caring leader.

Non-Verbal Cues

According to Mehrabian (1971), a big part of how a message is understood is due to nonverbal communication. Trump exuded confidence and power with his strong body language, which included bending forward and making repeated hand motions. Such non-verbal cues can improve views of leadership and authority, argues Burgoon (1994). His confident smile in particular contributed to his self-assured demeanor and solidified his image as a strong man. It's possible that Trump's inclination to interject during his speech overlapped with the moderators' interruptions, lessening the intelligibility of his overall message.

On the other hand, Harris conveyed a composed and steady body language, a strategy that is essential for fostering competence and trust, according to Argyle (1988). Harris made sure to make strong eye contact with the moderators as well as the audience, which might improve the impression of intelligence and empathy. Her comments were able to emotionally connect with the audience because of her deliberate pauses throughout her speech, especially when discussing delicate subjects like social justice and healthcare (Clark & Tree, 2002). This difference in nonverbal cues highlighted Harris's composed, sympathetic manner as opposed to Trump's more aggressive one.

Discourse Techniques and Communication Effectiveness

When it came to rhetorical devices, Trump frequently used exaggeration and repetition, especially when making statements like "the greatest economy in history." Charteris-Black (2011) argues that political speech uses repetition to reaffirm important points and help listeners remember them. This tactic has the potential to mobilize core supporters, but it also runs the danger of losing credibility if the facts are not supported (Wodak, 2015).

Harris, on the contrary, took a more policy-focused stance. Speaking in a cooperative conversational manner facilitates rapport-building and promotes inclusivity, according to Tannen (1993). By immediately answering the moderators' questions and providing thorough, reasoned explanations, Harris's approach supported Johnstone's (2008) claim that people who are looking for answers are more likely to be receptive to policy-driven conversation. Relentlessly using inclusive language, such as "we" and "our," Harris successfully fostered a sense of shared responsibility and community, which is essential in political speech meant to bring disparate groups together (Johnstone, 2008).

Moreover, Harris was especially successful at alternating between logical arguments and emotive appeals. Van Dijk (2008) asserts that this kind of code-switching enables politicians to appeal to voters' emotions as well as their reason to reach a wider audience. Trump's more straightforward, populist communication style, which sought to rally his supporters but might have hindered his appeal to indecisive voters, contrasted with this flexibility in communication.

Appeals to Ethos, Pathos, and Logos

Delving deeper into discourse techniques, three types of persuasion are frequently distinguished in rhetoric: pathos (emotion), ethos (credibility), and logos (logic). Throughout the discussion, each contender employed these differently:

• Ethos: To gain credibility, both Trump and Harris worked hard. Trump frequently cited his accomplishments, highlighting both the expansion of the economy during his presidency and his experience as president. Throughout her speech, Harris emphasized her background in public service and her influence on important decisions made during the Biden administration. In Aristotle's rhetoric, the establishment of the speaker's authority and reliability is contingent upon the use of ethos (Kennedy, 1991).
• Pathos: A major element of Trump's speech was his use of emotional appeals, especially when talking about immigration and the economy. His use of terror and patriotism in his speech was an attempt to elicit strong feelings in the voters. When addressing social justice and healthcare, Harris framed these concerns as moral obligations that have an impact on regular Americans. This was done with pathos. According to Tannen (1993), emotional appeals can foster empathy and a feeling of connection with the audience when they are employed skillfully.
• Logos: Harris concentrated more on logical arguments, offering facts and precise policy recommendations to address complicated problems. She mentioned the Affordable Care Act and cited specific figures in her discussion of healthcare reform, for example. Harris won over those who value logic and pragmatism by reiterating her points using data and statistics. According to Johnstone (2008), audiences that look for logical answers to societal issues find that logos-driven arguments work very well.
  
  
  

To conclude, the Trump-Harris debate demonstrated different ways of communicating both with words and with body language. Trump's forceful and somewhat exaggerated speech worked to win over his following, but it lacked the subtlety needed to persuade uncommitted voters. Harris, on the other hand, established herself as a composed and capable leader with her calibrated nonverbal clues and her calm, sympathetic, and policy-driven attitude. Several discourse analysis studies claim that these opposing communication tactics represent the candidates' different goals and target audiences. In the end, how well these tactics work will have a big impact on how voters perceive the 2024 presidential contest as it develops.

References 

ABC News (2024). FULL VIDEO | 2024 Presidential Debate, YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dOgWZsDB6Q (Accessed: 20 October 2024).

Aristotle (Kennedy, G.A. trans.) (1991). On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Atkinson, M. (1984). Our Masters' Voices: The Language and Body Language of Politics. London: Methuen.

Burgoon, J.K. (1994). ‘Nonverbal signals’, in Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. 2nd edn. London: Sage Publications, pp. 229-285.

Charteris-Black, J. (2011). Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. 2nd edn. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.

Johnstone, B. (2008). Discourse Analysis. 2nd edn. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Lakoff, G. (1993). ‘The contemporary theory of metaphor’, in Metaphor and Thought. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 202-251.

Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Tannen, D. (1993). Gender and Conversational Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Van Dijk, T.A. (1997). Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage.

Wodak, R. (2015). The Politics of Fear: What Right-Wing Populist Discourses Mean. London: Sage.