So, we've been talking about ethos now for a few videos. So, in this video, what we're going to do is we're going to examine a case of contrasting ethos styles. And we're going to do this through presidential debate. So, for years, I've used the 1992 presidential debate as a way of analyzing and showcasing the performative nature of ethos. Now, you may or may not know, the 92 election pitted the incumbent George HW Bush against Bill Clinton and the Independent Ross Perot. Bill Clinton, of course, ended up winning. Now, 92 also witnessed the start of the town hall style of debate. Now, the town hall style debate allowed average citizens to ask unscripted questions. So this was instead of having journalists ask questions of the candidates. And this [LAUGH] unscriptedness was really interesting, and so it was [SOUND] totally done away with. And it turns out that unplanned questions are pretty scary for politicians. But anyway, that didn't happen in the 92 debate. There's this one moment that stood out during this 90 minute debate in 1992. At around the half way point, a young women asks this question. >> Yes, how has the national debt personally affected each of your lives, and if it hasn't, how can you honestly find a cure for the economic problems of the common people if you have no experience in what's ailing them? >> All right. So that's a question about economic hardship. Now, she's asking this of a president, a billionaire and a sitting governor. And how much recent experience have they had with this type of economic concern? I'm going to guess not much. Come on but the question is important because it's a question about ethos. The question itself focuses on wisdom and empathy. I think you will argue whether or not it was a fair question to ask a presidential debate but, once it was asked, it exists. And the candidates got to deal with it. Now, Perot answered first. We're not going to watch him. Basically, he says that the debt affected him in so far as he had to leave his private life in order to run for public office. But then, and here's where we're going to start again. Then, we get to Bush. >> Well, I think the national debt affects everybody. Obviously, it has a lot to do with interest rates. It has- >> She's saying you personally. >> On a personal basis, how has it affected you? Has it affected you personally? >> Well, I'm sure it has. I love my grandchildren. I want to- >> How? >> I want to think they're going to be able to afford an education. I think that that's an important part of being a parent. >> So [LAUGH] I think it's fair to say, Bush is pretty frustrated here. And you can see that in his performance. And without going too much into the details, Bush had actually got into trouble in the past by being too testy in debate. So, he's probably on guard here not to come across as too mean. >> If the question, if yours, maybe I've got it rough. Are you suggesting that if somebody has means that the national debt doesn't affect them? >> What I'm saying- >> I'm not sure that you can help me with the question and I'll try to answer. >> Well, I've had friends that have been laid off from jobs. I know people who cannot afford to pay the mortgage on their homes, their car payment. I have personal problems, how can I say that? But how is it affecting you? And if you have no experience in it, how can you help us? If you don't know what feel- >> I think she means more the recession, the economic problems today the country faces. >> So again, this is really a question about ethos. Do you have the wisdom and good will to understand my experience and act in my best interest? Well, that's not how Bush responded. >> Rather than that so- >> Well listen, you ought to be in the White House for a day and hear what I hear, and see what I see, and read the mail I read and touch the people that I've touched from time to time. I was in a Lomax AME church. It's a black church just outside of Washington D.C., and I read in the bulletin about teenage pregnancies, about the difficulty that families are having to make ends meet. I talked to parents, we've got care. Everybody cares if people aren't doing well. >> So this question called for identification, right? It needed Bush to say, hey, here's how you and I are alike. Bush doesn't do that. Instead, he presents division. His first response is you can't identify with me, I'm the president. This is undeniably true, he's the president. Only a handful of humans know what he's going through. That is factually true. Not really what the situation called for, right? And then the second half of that response, I think, is even worse, right? So basically there is like, I actually do understand your pain, because I read about teenage pregnancies in a church bulletin, little old bulletin, I read about it. [SOUND] Sounds terrible, what you go through, blech, right? That wasn't a great response. He could've let it go right there, but instead we get this. >> But I don't think it's fair to say you haven't had cancer, therefore you don't know what it's like. I don't think it's fair to say, whatever it is, if you haven't been hit by it personally. >> Okay, that did not make things better at all! Okay, and I'm not unsympathetic here. I think Bush here is trying to argue that discussions of policy should foreground fact and empathy. Now, that didn't really come through very clearly in his response. And I think the interpersonal tension there made things worse. And the resulting ethos performed is the very thing it shouldn't have done. It just shows aloofness. >> Everybody's affected by the death. Because of the tremendous interest that goes into paying on that death, everything's more expensive. Everything comes out of your pocket, in my pocket. So it's that but in terms of the recession, of course, you feel it when you're the President of the United States. That's why I'm trying to do something about it by stimulating the export, investing more, better education system. >> Now, we turn to Clinton. He had the benefit of going last, but he kind of knew how to blend all those aspects of ethos. >> Thank you. >> I'm glad to clarify it. >> Tell me how it's affected you again. You know people who've lost their jobs, lost their homes. >> Well yeah, uh-huh. >> So you'll notice Clinton walks much closer to the woman. And as it turns out, the Clinton team had mapped out where the cameras were in this debate. So Clinton knew where to go to be both close to her and have her in frame. So he gets over there and then we start off with some eunoia. >> Well, I've been Governor of a small state for 12 years. I'll tell you how it's effected me- >> It's hot up here. >> Every year Congress and the President sign laws and makes us do more things and gives us less money to do it with. I see people in my state, middle class people their taxes have gone up a lot and then their services have gone down while the wealthy have gotten tax cuts. I have seen what's happened in these last four years. In my state, when people lose their jobs, there's a good chance I'll know them by their names. When a factory closes, I know the people who ran it. When the businesses go bankrupt, I know them. And I've been out here for 13 months, meetings and meetings just like this ever since October for people like you all over America. People that have lost their jobs, lost their livelihood, lost their health insurance. >> So here we get, I feel your pain, right? Or more to the point, I understand your pain. Then, he moves from eunoia into phronesis and arete. So having addressed the core issue, can you empathize with me? Clinton then shifts to his policy voice. >> What I want you to understand is the national debt is not the only cause of that. It is because America has not invested in its people. It is because we have not grown. It is because we've had 12 years of trickle down economics. We've gone from first to 12th in the world in wages. We had four years where produce no products after jobs. Most people are working harder for less money than ever make in ten years ago. >> Clinton's answer is banging on all cylinders. And I would stress the answer strength isn't just in his emotional connection with the questionnaire. That's certainly important, but his answer also demonstrates his passion for, and his knowledge of economic policy. His areté and phronesis, okay? Certainly it's not a detailed discussion, right? It only runs a few seconds, but he just knows this stuff. He's tossing out a few ideas quickly, without having to think about them. That's what policy mastery looks like. So let's go ahead now and just finish up. >> It is because we're in the grip of a failed economics theory. And this decision you're about to make better be about what kind of economic theory you want. Not just people saying, I want to go fix it, but what are we going to do? I think we have to do is invest is in American jobs, American education, control American health care across for bringing American people together again. >> And that's it, Clinton's answer clocks in at about 90 seconds, okay. But in that time, it achieved so much. Clinton is able to perform his ethos well. A passionate leader, with policy expertise that understands and apply to the working man, okay? Did that one answer do that all by itself? Of course not, but this answer captures what Clinton had done well and what continue to do well for so many years, balancing expertise and empathy. Now, both Bush and Clinton performed their ethos, blending big ideas with stuff like small amount of verbal gestures. You perform your ethos too when you stand to speak. The challenge is figuring out which you you present to the audience. [MUSIC]
