Sarah Henry

Mr. Bryce Chapman

BUSN 353
November, 11 2016
Interpersonal Communication in the Third Presidential Debate
How to summarize the first hour of the third Presidential debate of 2016? I
am not a political person and, honestly, did not voluntarily watch any of the
Presidential debates. I made this choice because of what I had heard
happened in the first debate. Important topics were not addressed by the
candidates. It was obvious, through spoken and unspoken communication,
that each were too concerned with pointing out the flaws of the other to truly
get to the root of their goals and objectives.
There were many reasons why the candidates failed to have a successful
debate but I will begin by discussing the communication barriers between
the two. First, and foremost, was the ability to effectively listen. I chose to
focus on the first hour of the debate because I wanted to get a feel of their
demeanor from the time they walked to the podium. The moderator began
with Clinton and it was clear to me, within the first 30 seconds, that Trump
had no desire to truly hear what she was saying. The nonverbal cues that
led me to this conclusion were the way he was fidgeting with the microphone
and making notes before she said anything to truly note. Along with this,
there was very little eye contact between the two. As the debate
progressed, controlling communication between the two candidates became
more difficult. They not only began talking over each other but also the
moderator. Active listening involves allowing others plenty of time to
express themselves. They both demonstrated a judger mind set by rigidly
sticking to their point of view with virtually no common ground. The only
fact I saw they agreed on was the fact that Clinton had more experience in
politics and even that came with confrontation and judgment. The other
significant barrier to communication was their lack of self awareness when
confronted with topics they were passionate about. Although they were both
lacking in this skill, I found Trump falling into it more often than Clinton.
Clinton triggered Trump on topics of involvement with Russia, The North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and immigration. When discussing
Trumps association with Putin of Russia, he became very immature when
Clinton called him Putins puppet by talking over her and repeatedly stating

she was the puppet. When speaking of trade and NAFTA, Trump called it a
horrible agreement and even tried to trigger Clinton by saying it was enacted
by her husband but she didnt allow this attempted trigger to lead her
astray into an emotional response. The immigration discussion tried to put a
cultural divide between the two. I felt like Clinton stayed on track by
addressing facts better than Trump where he let his emotions play into his
comments.
Intercultural communication barriers also played a role in the failure of the
debate. First, gender played a role in the lack of empathy each had. Clinton
was very passionate on her stance of protecting womens rights on the topic
of abortion. Trump focused solely on the aborting of the baby. Trumps
stance is pro life and Clintons stance is pro choice; both of which are very
polarizing groups. Had each been more successful in empathizing with both
sides, they could have potentially won over votes. Next was status, Clinton
worked very hard to paint Trump as an upper class individual. Although I feel
she also belongs in that group, by successfully projecting it onto him, he
allowed her to put him in a place where he had to defend himself in
situations that were true for her also. Finally, cultural viewpoints were very
dividing. On this topic, Clinton seemed much more empathetic while Trump
seemed more rigid in his approach to undocumented immigrants. I felt like
they were each agreeing on the same end result, not allowing undocumented
workers in the United States, but they were unable to align themselves so
that they could have a productive communication. They chose to judge
which led the American public wondering where they stood on the issue.
Now that we have looked at what the candidates did wrong that produced a
negative outcome, I would like to suggest some behaviors that could be
improved upon to help ensure a better outcome in the future. I believe it
goes back to the basic lessons we are taught as young children that seem to
get lost as we grow older. First, dont interrupt; everyone has the right to be
heard. This doesnt mean that you have to agree with them but you should
respect their opinion enough to actively listen. Second, be respectful;
pointing out others flaws is not productive. Acknowledge you are different
and work to find a middle ground. Third, be accountable for your actions;
pushing blame onto others doesnt allow for accountability. Claim your
mistakes and learn from them. Finally, learn diversity. This world is a
melting pot of many cultures that could potentially offer a lot of knowledge.
Realizing we dont all have to be the same color, race, or creed will bring
positive outcomes.

Whoever wins the Presidential election of 2016 will be representing our

country to the world. It will be in the best interest of our country for that
individual to take on a learner behavior and develop better interpersonal
communication skills. The process of encoding and decoding verbal and non
verbal cues takes on different meaning in varied situations. If the next
President of the United States is not able to step back and realize this, they
could potentially put the American public in harms way without even
realizing it.