Bill Clinton’s Debate Rhetoric:

Blending the Comic and the Tragic

The 1992 presidential election featured three candidates who argued for the status quo, against the status quo, and against anything sounding like politics: independent candidate Ross Perot forecast economic doom, President George Bush pleaded with Americans to believe that the economy was not as bad as people thought, and Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton proclaimed himself the messiah to save the nation. These messages were oft repeated on the wearisome campaign trail and throughout the three presidential debates of 1992. Time in its Oct. 19, 1992 issue summed up the position of the three Presidential candidates in the first debate: "Bush: This country is not coming apart at the seams, for heaven's sakes. Clinton: You've had your chance and it didn't work. It's time to change. Perot: I've got a lot of experience not taking 10 years to solve a 10-minute problem" ("It's Clinton's" 28).

The three presidential debates drew large audiences and provided voters, and rhetorical critics, competing messages to sort through and understand. While Perot's memorable sense of humor captivated a segment of voters watching the debates, Clinton used the debates to solidify his standing in the polls. Why was Clinton able to transform debate rhetoric into victory on November 3? Some have said his understanding of the complex issues facing Americans and ability to explain his programs won over the audience (Kramer 26). Others argued that "Slick Willie" was able to identify with his audiences unlike Bush or Perot (Fineman "Face" 20). However, these assertions do not fully take into account the rhetoric of the three candidates and the interpretation of reality the three offered.

This article utilizes Burke's comic perspective to offer several additional arguments why Clinton's successful performance in the debates was translated into victory. Overall, Clinton presented an interpretation of reality that was more palatable to Americans. First, Clinton subordinated a tragic rhetorical strategy to a subtle comic approach, convincing the audience that change was needed, while at the same time uniting voters. Second, Bush's use of satirical attacks on Clinton failed because Bush made himself Clinton's tragic scapegoat. Third, Perot's elegiac strategy of complaint was inherently flawed because he did not portray himself as a strong enough candidate to deal with his rhetorically created scene of economic doom. This article examines each of the candidate's debate strategies and then discusses the competing views of reality presented by the candidates.

Clinton's Comic/Tragic Strategies

Governor Clinton presented himself as as one ready to lead the country toward change. Clinton did not label Bush as "evil" nor did the govern blame Bush for the nation's problems. Instead, Clinton pointed out the incompetence of the Bush Administration, arguing Bush had responded inappropriately to problems facing the nation. For example, Clinton argued, "The administration may say they have a plan [for re-training defense workers], but the truth is they have not even released all the money that Congress appropriated [to train new workers]" (ABC News "Debate" Oct. 13). In Richmond, Clinton identified the failure of the Bush's economic theory: "You have to decide whether you want to change or not. We do not need four more years of an economic theory that doesn't work" (ABC News "Debate" Oct. 15, 1992). The Arkansas governor was saying that Bush was "mistaken" for pursuing the wrong policies. In perhaps the best example of Clinton's call for change within a comedic framework, Clinton argued Bush's inappropriate responses were constitutive of "insanity." Clinton said, "My wife Hillary gave me a book about a year ago that defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again hoping to get a different result" (ABC News "Debate" Oct. 13). Thus, Clinton depicted Bush not as evil, but misguided. As such, voters should reject the "misguided" incumbent. In his closing remarks in East Lansing, Clinton said: "I'd like to say to Mr. Bush, even though I've got profound differences with him, I do honor his service to our country. I appreciate his efforts and I wish him well. I just believe it's time to change" (ABC News "Debate" Oct. 19, 1992). His message repeated that the current administration's policies had not been an appropriate response to a failing economy and national milieu.

The three candidates participated in what Kenneth Burke has termed "drama"–assigning blame for a polluted societal situation. In 1992, pollution in the campaign drama included crime, economy, and government inaction. Burke's tragic rhetorical perspective requires that "villains" be scapegoated as the cause of pollution (Attitudes 41). Much critical attention has focused on Clinton's use of tragic strategies. The former Arkansas governor repeatedly attacked Bush, blaming him for the nation's economic woes. However, Clinton also pursued a subtle, comic strategy in the debates which instead of blaming "villains," blamed "fools" (Attitudes 41). Gronbeck argued that in 1988, voters responded negatively to attack strategies (335). Drawing on this, the Governor may have been wise to pursue comic strategies. Thus, Clinton blended the comic with the tragic throughout the debates. While he tragically identified Bush's pride as a source of guilt, Clinton spoke in terms of Bush being "mistaken." Burke said, "All people are exposed to situations in which they must act as fools," (Attitudes 41). In pentadic terms, Burke argued those speaking from a comic frame feature a scene-act ratio, where the scene is the motive for the act. In this case, the nation's economic recession prompted Bush's foolish actions. Clinton's interpretation of Bush's term in office reveals Clinton's call for change within a comedic framework–establishing that Bush had inappropriately responded to the scene of the economy and other issues.

Bush as Satirist

President Bush responded to Clinton by attacking the Arkansas governor. The president challenged Clinton on the economy:

I know the only way he thinks he can win is to make everyone think the economy is worse than it is. We're not coming apart at the seams for heaven's sakes. I'd hate to be running for president and think that the only way I could win would be to convince everyone how horrible things are. (ABC News "Debate" Oct. 11)

President Bush echoed this message throughout the debates, satirizing Clinton's attacks on Reaganomics in the final debate: "He doesn't like trickle-down government, but I think he's talking about the Reagan-Bush years where we created 15 million jobs" (ABC News "Debate" Oct. 19). Not only did Bush satirize Clinton's campaign, but Bush attacked the Democrat's character as well. The president argued, "I think it's wrong to demonstrate against your own country or organize demonstrations against your own country in foreign soil. I just think its wrong . . . Whether its character or judgement, I have a big difference on this issue" (ABC News "Debate" Oct. 13).

Bush, in the end, became "unpresidentially shrill, repeatedly calling Clinton and his running mate, Al Gore, 'bozos' ("Clinton Whispered" 20). He sought to exploit weaknesses in Clinton's record and Perot's leadership qualities to persuade Americans that the status quo was better than change. Burke argued a satirist "attacks in others the weaknesses and temptations that are really within himself" (Attitudes 49). A person "thereby gratifies and punishes the vice within himself" (Attitudes 49). Burke asked "Is he whipped with his own lash? He is" (Attitudes 49). Such attacks, Burke said, promote ambiguity. "Expertness in satiric practice makes good inventory almost impossible" (Attitudes 49). This attack also, Burke said, may mirror Bush's own character and judgement weaknesses–Iran-Contra, an alleged affair, and abandonment of his "no new taxes" pledge. Thus, Bush made a concerted effort to satirize his opponent.

Perot as Elegiac

While Bush and Clinton were arguing over who would best govern the country, independent Texas businessperson Ross Perot argued that he was different:

I don't have any experience in running a four trillion dollar deficit. I don't have any experience in gridlock government where nobody takes responsibility for anything and blames everybody else. I don't have an experience in creating the worst public school system in the industrialized world or the most violent, crime-ridden society in the industrialized world. But I do have a lot of experience in getting things done (ABC News "Debate" Oct. 13).

Perot continually demonstrated that he was an outsider, someone unfamiliar with the Washington political scene. As the preceding passage indicates, Perot repeatedly referred to himself in terms of what he is not, humbling himself and claiming to not be a politician. In his closing remarks in Richmond, he remarked: "If the American people want to do it and not talk about it, then, they ought -- you know, I'm not person they ought to consider. If they just want to keep slow-dancing and talk about it, and not do it, I'm not your man" (ABC News "Debate" Oct. 15, 1992).

Perot's rhetoric derived its strength from negation–taking a stance on government that was different than anybody else. Perot, with a "common touch," (Fineman "Face" 24) proclaimed that he had the business sense and political independence to cure the nation's budget deficit. Burke said the elegiac, or the plaint, develops a technique of complaint that allows him or her to deal with the situation of the world. Perot portrayed the government as mighty, yet mistaken and himself as the weak, though sensible individual: "I don't have any experience in running up a $4 trillion debt" (Fineman "Face" 22). Humble people receive special treatment in Burke's elegiac category. "Children, fools, criminals, rogues, and simple rustics 'turn slowly into Christ and ruler,'" (Attitudes 48). Thus the hero of the plaint category engage in humble boasting in order to raise his or her standards (Attitudes 48). Burke argued this category was dangerous in that it does not adequately size up the situation or the rhetor's resources and consequently widens the gap between the weak individual and situation. Others will "move in" on the group until the physical limits of the complaint strategy are realized (Attitudes 44). On many occasions, Perot referred to himself as the "clean-up crew" (ABC News "Debate" Oct. 11). Unfortunately for Perot, Americans were looking for a president.

Discussion

The preceding analysis of each candidate's debate rhetoric reveals several insights. First, Clinton took advantage of Bush's inappropriate response to the economic scene to cast doubt on the incumbent's policies, while at the same time uniting Americans. Time of Nov. 16, 1992 reported that "more striking still, Clinton rolled up pluralities or majorities in most major demographic groups ("Clinton Whispered" 18). The popular media has argued the economy was the controlling issue of the campaign. Time asked and answered, "How did he do it? A combination of a sick economy and an emphasis on the right issues" ("Clinton Whispered" 18). A Burkeian analysis reveals the ironic effect the economy had on the strategies of the incumbent and outsider. In most elections, the incumbent is able to rely on his or her record. However, a sick economy in 1992 provided Clinton the opportunity to construct a reality that was more acceptable to the public. Clinton argued that Bush had not adequately responded to the economic recession while Bush argued the economy was not as bad as people thought. Bush's view of reality fell on deaf ears to those who were experiencing the recession first-hand. In Burke's terms, Clinton constructed a rhetorical frame which accepted the idea of deposing Bush. Bush could not rely on his record and thus was forced to reject the reality of many Americans who thought that it was time for him to leave office. Clinton presented a view of reality that was more acceptable to American voters.

Further, Clinton used tragic strategies of blaming, while incorporating comic rhetorical strategies, sending voters a message that did more than just blame Bush for the country's troubles. Clinton's message united the voters as well. Bush, then, was forced to reject the popular opinion and attack Clinton. Thus, a change in political or economic climate necessitated a change in political postures. This change allowed Clinton to provide resolution while Bush could only attack: a vote for Clinton was a vote for solution, a vote for Bush was a vote for continued recession. As Bush's popularity plummeted, he was forced to pursue negative strategies of rejection, while Clinton could construct a frame of acceptance using comedic strategies. The scene provided Clinton a favorable frame to argue from. This finding supports research that argues scene, not agent becomes the controlling term in presidential campaigns.

Thus, Bush was forced to use negative campaigning to persuade the public that Clinton was not the person to save the nation. These attacks failed because Bush's avoidance of the comic frame allowed himself to be the tragic scapegoat. Bush dwelt in the tragic frame, which forced him to accept the blame for a poor economy or shift the blame to someone or something else. Burke argued that those who attack are gratifying and punishing the similar vice within himself or herself (Attitudes 49). In 1992, Bush's own credibility was questionable. Iran-contra, an alleged extra-marital affair, and abandonment of his "no new taxes" pledge raised public skepticism concerning Bush's credibility. Newsweek staff writer Howard Fineman wrote, "Whatever late surge Bush had enjoyed on the ‘trust’ issue dissipated amid new charges that he had lied about his knowledge of the 1986 arms-for-hostages deal with Iran" ("The Torch Passes" 9). Bush’s 1992 attacks were not as successful as those of 1988 when relatively little negative was brought to light about his character. This analysis provides another explanation for the failure of Bush's negative campaigning–a failure the president did not recognize. Even if he would have recognized the failure of his strategy, Bush would have been hard-pressed to adopt another strategy because his other choice was mortification–accepting the blame himself for the economic condition. He was forced to fight Clinton's rhetoric or agree with the governor.

Finally, the study argues that Ross Perot must change his political posture if he is to be successful at furthering his political career. Perot acknowledged the tragedy of the American economy yet did not show how he would deal with the tragedy. He did not take the tragic seriously. Perot may have to modify his role as an outsider if he is to be successful in the future. Burke pointed out that the elegiac has limitations. The "magnitude" of the situation remains out of reach of the agent of change because of the agent's weaknesses (Attitudes 44). Thus, Perot's position as an outsider is one that the public may view as inadequate to deal with the complexities of the presidency. Like it or not, Perot may have to assume a presidential posture if he is to be successful. He must define himself in favorable terms and not be defined by his opponents. He must provide a reasonable alternative to the major party candidates. However, it seems that at the present time, Perot does not desire that strategy. On election night, reported Newsweek, Perot maintained the "crazy" theme. Fineman reported, "Then, grinning ear to ear, he [Perot] asked the band to strike up his theme song, "Crazy" ("The Torch Passes" 9). If Perot continues to dance to the tune of "Crazy", he will only play into the comedic frame of the incumbent, Clinton.

Clinton was more successful throughout the campaign than he was in his first 100 days in office. The President's use of comic rhetorical strategies forecasts two divergent views of his tenure of leadership. On the downside, Clinton's unrealistic campaign promises constructed a scene he is not capable of dealing with. Burke argued that the comic frame often creates a scene in which all people must at some point act as fools (Attitudes 42). Clinton's appointments fiascos and inability to present health care reform legislation are examples of Clinton's foolish actions. However, Clinton's use of comic strategies bodes well for his ability to build coalitions and concensus to solve these very problems. The test of the Clinton Presidency will be to deliver on his campaign promises, but also to use the rhetorical strategies that worked for him in the campaign to better the lives of all Americans.

Works Cited

Burke, Kenneth. Attitudes Toward History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984.

"Clinton Whispered, But Voters Roared." Time 16 Nov. 1992: 18-20.

"Debate." ABC News. 11 Oct. 1992.

"Debate." ABC News. 15 Oct. 1992.

"Debate." ABC News. 19 Oct. 1992.

"Final Debate Tops Ratings." New York Times 21 Oct. 1992, natl. ed.: A13.

Fineman, Howard. "The Torch Passes." Newsweek Nov./Dec. 1992: 4-10.

---. "Face to Face to Face." Newsweek 19 Oct. 1992: 20-24.

Kramer, Michael. "It's Clinton's To Lose." Time 19 Oct. 1992: 26-30.

Gronbeck, Bruce E. "Negative Narratives in the 1988 Presidential Campaign Ads." Quarterly Journal of Speech 78 (1992): 333-346.

Turque, Bill. "'We'll Keep On Going.'" Newsweek Nov./Dec. 1992: 13.

Wills, Gary. "The End of Reaganism." Time 16 Nov. 1992: 73-77.