Respect in Presidential Debates: An Analysis of Trump’s Treatment of Joe Rogan and Chris Wallace
Donald Trump's approach to respect in political interactions is notably controversial. Throughout his political career, he has demonstrated a distinctive pattern of treating those who align with his interests with deference, while showing snide disrespect to others. This tendency extends to his behavior in presidential debates, where his treatment of moderators such as Joe Rogan and Chris Wallace reveals his true character.
Donald Trump's Concept of Respect
Respect, based on Donald Trump's behavior, is an abstract concept often treated with disdain. Those he reveres - such as dictators and oppressive regimes - receive sycophantic treatment. Conversely, he maintains a facade of respect for individuals he aims to manipulate for personal gain. However, for the majority, his reaction is one of condescending ridicule and disdain.
The underlying issue here is that Trump often lacks the basic ethical framework from which respect stems. For instance, he has openly stated he views himself as above moral scrutiny, as evidenced by his sexual misconduct claims. Additionally, he has been notoriously dishonest and morally vacuous. In these instances, his interactions with others like Joe Rogan can be expected to follow his pattern of disrespectful behavior.
The Trump-Rogan Dynamic
Given Trump's history with respect, it is highly improbable that he would show Joe Rogan any form of genuine respect. On several occasions, Dan Rather has noted that Trump speaks of Rogan in a derogatory manner, suggesting a pre-existing lack of respect. Trump’s past behavior, which includes calling sexual predators and cheating on spouses, further supports this conclusion. Therefore, it is almost certain that Trump would express his disdain for Rogan's role as a moderator, possibly by insinuating that Rogan was biased against him.
Moreover, Trump has displayed an unconventional approach to debate format, wanting to delve deeply into issues from the get-go. If Rogan were to follow a similar approach, Trump would likely be even more intolerant of such an interrogation style, as he demonstrated in his demeanor towards Chris Wallace during their debate.
Chris Wallace’s Impact on Trump's Perception
Chris Wallace's treatment of Donald Trump in the first debate brought to light how moderators can shape the narrative. Wallace, who was known for his impartial style, initially seemed to respect Trump. However, this mutual respect was quickly tested as the debate progressed. Trump appreciated Wallace allowing Biden to evade questions on the Supreme Court, but this wasn't the case when Wallace neglected to allow Biden a proper response to the same issue.
Ultimately, this dynamic reveals that respect is not unidirectional. Both candidates can choose to treat the debate as an opportunity to undermine their opponents rather than an exchange of ideas. Wallace, despite his best efforts, was not immune to the pressure exerted by the commission and Trump himself, leading to an uneven exchange.
Respect in Presidential Debates: A Mutual Expectation
It is crucial to recognize that respect in political debates is a two-way street. Even Wallace, who was considered impartial, failed to maintain a balanced exchange. Trump's behavior throughout the debate betrayed a lack of mutual respect, and any perceived slowness or bias from Rogan would likely be amplified under pressure.
From a broader perspective, the need for debate moderation that fosters mutual respect underscores the importance of reform. Separate presentations of policy specifics by both sides without the distracting nature of live debate might be more beneficial to the public. The focus on substance over rhetoric and the absence of back-and-forth attacks could lead to a more enlightening discourse.
Furthermore, the ongoing vilification of Trump, which has persisted for nearly four years, highlights a lack of communal respect. The persistence of such damage can be attributed to the hypocritical nature of the left, which thrives on division rather than constructive discourse.