Elections Presidential candidates are using Trump as a distraction tactic By Camay Abraham COPY URL

“The person who is most enjoying this debate is Donald Trump,” said New Jersey senator Cory Booker about Democrats picking one another apart. As someone who is not a politics impresario in the slightest, I decided to watch the second night of the American Democratic debates not only because I’m concerned about the current state of the country (gun issues, race issues, climate issues, immigration issues) but because I wanted to observe politics from an outsider perspective.

In all honesty, what pushed me to watch the second night of the debates was not just the need to update myself on the proposed policies or to see who could possibly be the next President of the U.S., but the flashy trailer that kept popping up on every television, laptop, and phone around me. If you were mildly paying attention to the trailer, the red graphics and grey colour scheme, the blaring music and dramatic editing, all these elements made it seem like a commercial for a high profile boxing match, one that you really didn’t want to miss.

After watching the back and forth between the panel of presidential hopefuls, what I noticed most was the misdirection tactic employed by almost all of the candidates. Every so often a candidate would remind us not to forget who’s the real bad guy here—and that’s Trump. By changing the subject, candidates diverted the debate and the audience’s attention. It’s a disruptive strategy used in debates when someone can’t add anything valuable to the argument.

Yes, we all know Trump is the bad guy, but you didn’t answer the big questions. What’s your plan for healthcare? Your stance on climate change? What will you do about the legalisation regarding immigrants coming into the country? Even Cardi B noticed this tactic, saying, “We get distracted with people putting Trump on blast. (…) Why don’t we post every single day the positive things that these Democratic candidates want to do for our country?”

We tell you the truth, no distraction tactics Sign up to our newsletter

According to the data analytics website FiveThirtyEight, during the first night of the debates, only 6 out of 20 candidates mentioned Trump’s name, whereas in the second debate his name was mentioned by all of the candidates, with Elizabeth Warren mentioning him 12 times, a new record. This misdirection would come into play as soon as a candidate needed to regain the good graces of the audience. By saying something unfavourable about Trump, they didn’t have to answer to a particular question and gained a little more air time on top of that.

Like any political debate (or any debate for that matter), people tend to focus on ‘winning’ instead of discussing their takes on issues. According to author and Harvard MBA graduate John T. Reed, some will go as far as using intellectually dishonest methods in order to ‘win’. This involves tactics as childish as name-calling, belittling your opponent’s credentials, and of course, changing the subject or engaging in misdirection.

During the second night of the Democratic debates, candidates deflected moderator’s line of questioning by using Trump as a scapegoat, reminding everyone of his reckless choices. From a psychological standpoint, the scapegoat mechanism shows that when the world is in chaos, one person or entity is blamed for it. To satisfy people’s unanimous unhappiness, that one person will be singled out or used as a scapegoat to satiate the public’s discontent. Why? Because it’s always easier to blame someone instead of taking responsibility. Playing the blame game and focusing on the villain stops us from identifying the actual problem and finding a solution.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t blame Trump for the current chaos in the country. We should, he’s the President of the U.S. and the country is his responsibility, but that’s not what this is about. This isn’t even about politics, really, but rather about demeanor, tackling the hard issues, and why people are focusing on blaming the villain instead of tackling the core of the problem.