Why Donald Trump is Smart to Skip the Second Debate
In a political arena where every word is scrutinized, every action analyzed, Donald Trump’s decision to skip the second debate may seem like a maverick move, but it’s actually a masterstroke. Now, I am not penning this article as a Trump supporter but as an observer of the behavioral nuances that encompass the chaotic world of politics.
Debates have long been viewed as a platform for candidates to showcase their knowledge, viewpoints, and, in essence, their competence. However, they have morphed into stages of insecurity demonstration rather than platforms of confidence and strength. The second debate is a prime example. Candidates may be more bombastic, engaging in finger-pointing in an attempt to showcase strength, but in reality, coming from their personalities’ hands it is more likely to come off as unveiling their hunger, insecurity, and perhaps even desperation.
The Clinton and Trump debates of yesteryears were vivid demonstrations of this paradox. Hillary Clinton, with her extensive explanation of qualifications and comprehensive plans, aimed to showcase competence but ironically worked against her. The incessant endeavor to explain and justify had its roots in Shakespeare, “Me thinks the lady doth explain too much.”
Trump, in contrast, was declarative, explicit, and even confrontational. It was a rendition of the Declaration of Independence, not the Explanation of Independence. His approach, perceived by many as unapologetic confidence, had a strategic advantage; it resonated with a section of the populace tired of the conventional political circumlocution.
The second debate tends to heighten these theatrics. GOP candidates, with their predilection for showmanship, could arguably emerge more desperate and insecure, unwittingly revealing their vulnerabilities. Trump’s decision to abstain from this volatile environment is calculated. His personality, polarizing yet unapologetically transparent, allows him to embrace confrontational stances without diluting his persona. He alone can get away with the bombastic and the declarative without it appearing to be overshadowed by his insecurities.
The ambiance of debates is a delicate dance between vulnerability and strength. The audience perceives overly articulate justifications and qualifications as masking insecurities. Over-explanations seem to reflect a hidden inadequacy, a subconscious plea for validation. The audience, invariably, is drawn to confidence, to declarative statements, to unapologetic assertiveness, mirroring our inherent desire for decisive and unswerving leadership.
Donald Trump, aware of this psychological undercurrent, is making a deliberate and informed choice to stay away from the second debate, avoiding the pitfall of perceived insecurity. His absence is not a demonstration of fear or inadequacy; it is a tactical bypass, an avoidance of a scenario that would yield no additional benefits to his campaign where he still holds a commanding lead.
In this theater of politics, his absence speaks volumes more than his presence could. It sends a message of unwavering self-assurance, projecting the image of a leader unfazed by the cacophony of his competitors, a leader who chooses his battles wisely. This demeanor resonates with people seeking strong, decisive leadership, aligning perfectly with the fundamental human desire for security and stability.
Critics may argue that skipping debates could be seen as evading scrutiny, but for Trump, it strengthens his image of unconventionality. It reinforces his brand of doing things his way, unmoved by traditional expectations and undaunted by conventional norms.
Many voters, caught in the constant whirlwind of political rhetoric, are drawn to this unorthodox approach. They are yearning for a leader who doesn’t conform, who doesn’t pander, and who doesn’t get entangled in the labyrinth of political correctness. Trump’s strategic absence from the debate serves as a metaphorical stance against the status quo, further endearing him to his base and campaign contributors.
This psychological battle, this war of perceptions, is as crucial as the policies, the promises, and the performances. Donald Trump, by sidestepping the second debate, is subtly reinforcing his image as a leader who stands apart, who chooses to be the shepherd and not a sheep.
In this complex game of political chess, Trump’s move to skip the second debate is not a reckless abandonment; it is a well-thought-out or more likely instinctually driven strategy, a meticulously calculated maneuver in the labyrinthine world of political psychology. Whether one agrees with his policies or not, his understanding of human behavior and his ability to leverage it are undeniably smart and impeccably timed. The ability to maneuver the intricate tapestry of human perception is a testament to the acumen that has propelled him to the forefront of political discourse and kept him center stage since he announced his candidacy for President in 2015.