Smreker-Bruce 1

Joseph Smreker-Bruce
Bryce Chapman
Communication Strategies in Business
15 November 2016
Interpersonal Communication
During the first hour the candidates cover several of the most heavily discussed topics of
the election including justice appointing, abortion, immigration, economy, as well as hot button
allegations about both candidates. Trump and Clinton both were polar opposites in terms of
abortion. Clinton did not seem to be as open borders as Trump made her out to be, and they both
have opposite ways of dealing with the economy.
There were many barriers that were causing communication failures throughout the
debate. The first of which and perhaps the most prominent is the restriction of the debate
structure itself. Each candidate was only given a certain amount of time to speak while the other
candidate was expected to remain silent and wait their turn to speak. This of course created a
barrier because the candidates were not expected to speak to one another directly at all. There
were also some barriers in terms of how each candidate spoke, as Trump uses more basic
language with more emphasis, and Clinton uses a less pompous language with less emphasis or
drive. Culturally and in background, they are divided as well because Clinton has actual
government experience where Trump is a businessman. This creates a massive divide between
them because their entire lives have been based in fundamentally different areas of management.
Each candidate picked out pieces of the others speech in order to bring out the worst in
them. Trump often says things that are less than socially acceptable and Clinton will bring these
things up in order to discredit his position on things such as immigration and abortion. This is a
tactic that is logically an Ad Hominem fallacy and is not valid in an argument, ultimately
creating a communication breakdown. Trump would often take things that Clinton had said or
supported and draw them out to be much more significant than they actually were which also
created some communication breakdown.
Empathetic listening would have resulted in less bickering about who said what and what
they meant by it, because Trump does not come from a political background. When trying to
become a president of the United States it is generally expected that the person we want to elect
is eloquent and purposeful with everything they say and do not make any statements without

Smreker-Bruce 2
carefully considering all the possible implications that it could have. Trump often makes
statements without this careful consideration and the public, as well as Clinton, will often use
this against him. Trump is likely more guilty of this than Clinton because he does not have a
political background and instead comes from the private sector, wherein everything is more lax
and nothing really matters unless it affects the company's bottom line, otherwise all things are
fair play. Clinton is used to being public and being careful about her wording and does not very
often say something that she should not have. While this is expected of a president, if empathetic
listening is used it is not necessary that the candidate be so careful with their words, because the
listener will understand what they meant despite how it may be construed to reflect poorly on
them.
Trump and Clinton differ interculturally in a number of ways, including gender, class,
background and experience, and they could have demonstrated better intercultural
communication competence by focusing more on what the other candidate meant than what they
technically have said or other things from the candidate's past that are only slightly related.
Trump can often bring up items that Clinton has voted on in her political past and point to them
saying that this must mean she is one way or the other, which is an easy way to misrepresent a
person. Clinton cannot do this with Trump because he does not have a political background.
What Clinton can do, however, is bring up things from Trumps past in business, which is a very
kill-or-be-killed area to seek to thrive in so there are many egregious business decisions that
Trump has made in the past that Clinton will often bring up in order to make Trump look bad.
Both candidates could have done without this behavior if they wanted to demonstrate
intercultural communication competence.
If both candidates had focused more on listening and less on trying to make the other
look bad, the negative outcome of the debate could have been avoided. The candidates simply do
no more than search for ways to make the other seem like a poor choice, and then state their
position on certain issues. This is not a good way to communicate if both parties are seeking to
get along, however they are not, so they will always act in this manner.