Source: StockSnap/Pixabay
Imagine this: It’s debate night. The stage is set, cameras are rolling, and millions of Americans are tuning in to hear the nation’s future leaders discuss critical issues. As the candidates take the stage, they don’t interrupt or insult each other. They certainly don’t mock their opponents’ clothes, hair, or overall appearance. Instead, they engage respectfully, follow a golden rule, and adhere to the sage advice once shared by an elementary school teacher: “If somebody can’t change something about themselves in 30 seconds or less, then you shouldn’t be mentioning it to them.” One can only hope…
This simple yet powerful rule could revolutionize not only debates but the entire election season. Beyond curbing personal attacks, it sets a tone of respect, focuses on policy, and reminds us that leaders are models for the behavior we want to see in society. What would a debate look like if it followed this advice? And how can it teach us all—candidates and voters alike—how to navigate the emotional roller-coaster of election season with more civility? Let’s explore this through the lenses of cognitive science, developmental psychology, political science, and mass communication theory.
A Cognitive Science Perspective: Why We Fixate on Appearances
Humans are hardwired to make quick judgments based on appearances. It’s a survival mechanism—our brains take shortcuts (known as heuristics) to assess potential threats, often in seconds (Kahneman, 2011). Unfortunately, in modern society, these snap judgments extend to things like someone’s haircut or posture. Cognitive science explains that while these judgments may be automatic, they aren’t always fair, and they often distract us from substantive issues, like policies and qualifications.
In debates, when candidates mock each other, they tap into this cognitive bias, distracting the audience from policy discussions. If debates followed the “30-second rule”—focusing on ideas rather than superficial judgments—the public might engage in more meaningful evaluations of the candidates’ platforms. This shift would encourage deeper, more rational cognitive processing, allowing voters to focus on the issues that truly matter, rather than being swayed by emotional appeals or surface-level criticisms.
Developmental Psychology: The Power of Modeling Respectful Behavior
Developmental psychology tells us that children learn social behavior by observing adults (Bandura, 1977). They mimic what they see, particularly from figures of authority. Now consider that presidential candidates are some of the most visible authority figures in the world, broadcast into millions of homes during debates. When they engage in bullying behavior, the ripple effect extends far beyond the stage. Children, teens, and even adults see these actions as permissible or even desirable forms of discourse.
If debates followed the “30-second rule,” it would set a powerful example for children and adults alike, and we could move on to focus on bigger, more pressing issues. It would reinforce that constructive criticism—focused on issues, not people—is how mature, respectful dialogue is conducted. Such an approach could model for future generations that political disagreements don’t have to devolve into personal attacks. Instead, they can be about thoughtful, substantive exchanges.
Political Science: A Call for Elevated Discourse
In political science, debates are viewed as crucial moments where candidates make their case to the public. Historically, some of the most memorable debate moments involve zingers or personal insults, not policy points. These moments might entertain, but they do little to foster an understanding of where the candidates stand on critical issues.
Political theorists argue that democracy thrives when discourse is elevated and focused on the public good. If presidential candidates followed this elementary school rule, debates would shift toward a more policy-centered discussion. Instead of using appearance-based jabs to score quick points, candidates would be forced to engage with each other’s ideas, platforms, and visions for the country. This type of respectful discourse could improve not only voter engagement but also the quality of democracy itself by focusing on the true issues at stake.
Mass Communication Theory: The Impact of Media Framing
Mass communication theory teaches us that the media doesn’t just report on events; it frames them in ways that influence how the public perceives them (Entman, 1993). When media outlets highlight personal attacks or sensational moments from debates, they contribute to a culture that prizes drama over substance. These soundbites become the narrative, and the public’s focus shifts from policies to personalities.
By contrast, if candidates adhered to the 30-second rule and avoided appearance-based criticisms, the media would have no choice but to focus on the substance of the debate. This could fundamentally alter the framing of political discourse, prioritizing thoughtful discussion over mudslinging. Ultimately, it would encourage both candidates and the media to elevate the conversation, making the debate more informative for voters.
Lessons for Navigating Election Season
This election season, it’s important for everyone—not just politicians—to take a page from an elementary school teacher rulebook. In a polarized political climate, respecting differences is more important than ever. Here are some takeaways that can help all of us engage more respectfully:
1. Focus on Ideas: Whether debating with a friend, neighbor, or even a stranger on social media, focus on their ideas and arguments rather than personal attacks. Just as in an elementary school classroom, attacking someone’s appearance or character rarely resolves conflict—it only escalates it.
2. Model the Behavior You Want to See: Like political candidates, we’re all being watched—by our children, peers, and communities. If we want to see a kinder, more respectful society, we have to model that behavior ourselves. That means engaging in civil discourse, even when we disagree.
3. Take a Moment to Reflect: Before responding to something that irritates or offends you, pause. Would your comment pass the 30-second rule? Is it constructive? Or are you just pointing out a problem without offering a solution? Taking a moment to reflect can help elevate the quality of your conversations.
Recommendations for Candidates: The World Is Watching
For those running for office, the stakes are even higher. The world is watching, and your behavior on the debate stage has the power to shape not only political discourse but also the culture at large. Personal attacks, especially those based on appearance, set a tone of disrespect that can trickle down to society and future generations. It’s not just about winning the debate or the election; it’s about the kind of example you’re setting.
Instead of using superficial jabs, candidates should strive to engage in thoughtful debate, focusing on the issues that matter most to voters. The future of our democracy depends on a citizenry that can engage in healthy, respectful discourse. If our leaders can model that, they can help create a culture where disagreements are handled with civility, not contempt.
Source: Esi Grünhagen/Pixabay
Beyond Kindergarten
Following this rule of not pointing out appearance-related problems unless they can be fixed in 30 seconds may seem like a small thing. But when applied to presidential debates—and our broader political culture—it represents a significant shift toward respect, civility, and meaningful discourse. As we move through this election season, let’s all strive to elevate our conversations, focus on substance, and remember that the way we engage with others shapes the world we live in.
Presidential debates shouldn’t just be a stage for personal attacks; if candidates focused on policies instead, we might actually move forward constructively. Remember: Words have power—and maybe networks should consider inviting teachers as debate moderators to keep everyone on track.
