University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Communication Studies Faculty Publications Communication Studies Spring 2005 A Functional Analysis of American Vice Presidential Debates William L. Benoit Ohio University, Athens, OH, [email protected] David Airne University of Montana - Missoula, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/communications_pubs Part of the Communication Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Benoit, William L. and Airne, David, "A Functional Analysis of American Vice Presidential Debates" (2005). Communication Studies Faculty Publications. 8. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/communications_pubs/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Communication Studies at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Communication Studies Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY 41 (Spring 2005): 225-236 A FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF AMERICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES William L. Benoit and David Airne Compared to presidential debates, vice dent after President John F. Kennedy was presidential debates tend to receive short assassinated. However, voters had not had shrift. Of course, there have been far fewer an opportunity to see Johnson, or Henry of them. No vice presidential debates were Cabot Lodge (Richard Nixon's running held in 1960 or 1980; other years featured mate), in a vice presidential debate. In 2004, two or three presidential debates but only Gwen Ifill noted, "Ten men and women one encounter between the vice presidential have been nominees of their parties since candidates. Through 2004, we have seen 7 1976 to be vice president." She then asked debates from running mates but 23 debates Senator Edwards, "What qualifies you to be featuring the top of the ticket. Unfortunately, a heartbeat away?" Obviously, election years scholars tend to ignore debates between the in which vice presidential debates occur of- running mates of the presidential candidates. fer voters an extended opportunity to leam Numerous books (e.g., Benoit & Wells, 1996; about, and compare, the vice presidential Benoit, McHale, Hansen, Pier, & McGurie, candidates. Furthermore, voters can leam 2003; Bishop, Meadow, & Jackson-Beeck, about the presidential candidates because 1978; Bitzer & Rueter, 1980; Carlin & Mc- the vice presidential candidates also discuss Kinney, 1994; Coleman, 2000; Friedenberg, their running mates. In fact, in 2004, Gwen 1994, 1997; Hellweg, Pfau, & Brydon, 1992; Ifill felt compelled to demand that the can- Hinck, 1993; Jamieson & Birdsell, 1988; didates answer at least one question without Kraus, 1962, 1977, 2000; Lanoue & Schrott, mentioning their running mates; Edwards 1991; Schroeder, 2000; Swerdlow, 1984, could not manage to do so. 1987) and many articles (e.g., Benoit, Han- Furthermore, it is clear that voters see sen, & Verser, 2003; Louden, 2005; Racine value in vice presidential debates. Focus Group, 2002) have been published on pres- group participants in 1992 indicated that idential debates. In contrast, no books and a these encounters "served to highlight the limited number of book chapters (e.g.. presidential candidate's decision making and Decker, 1994; Devlin, 1994; Ragsdale, 1997; provided insight into the abilities of the vice Sauter, 1994; Trent, 1994) and articles (e.g.. presidential candidate" (Kay & Borchers, Beck, 1996; Carlin & Bicak, 1993; dayman, 1994, p. 107). Tens of millions of viewers-an 1995; Sullivan, 1989) have investigated vice average of over 42 million-have watched presidential debates. the vice presidential debates.' Research Is this neglect reasonable? In 1963, Vice shows that watching vice presidential de- President Lyndon Johnson became presi- bates can infiuence opinions (Payne, Golden, Marlier, & Ratzan, 1989; Wall, William L. Benoit, Department of Communieation, University Golden, & James, 1988), voters' perceptions of Missouri; David Airne, Department of Communication Studies, University of Alabama. William Benoit gratefully of the candidates (Holbrook, 1994), and their acknowledges the University of Missouri Research voting intentions (Holbrook, 1994). Finally, Council, which awarded him a Summer Research Fel- lowship to support this research. Correspondence con- cerning this article should be addressed to William L. Benoit, Department of Communication, University of ' The average audience for a presidential debate in Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211-2310. E-mail: the same years was 49.7 million (Commission on Presi- [email protected] dential Debates, 2005; see Table 1). 226 VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES SPRING 2005 TABLE I. VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES, 1976, 1984-2004 Date Democrat Republican Audience (millions)* 1976 10/15 Walter Mondale Bob Dole 43.2 1984 10/11 Geraldine Eerraro George Bush 56.7 1988 10/5 Lloyd Bentsen Dan Quayle 46.9 1992t 10/13 Al Gore Dan Quayle 51.2 1996 10/9 Al Gore Jack Kemp 26.6 2000 10/5 Joe Lieberman Dick Cheney 28.5 2004 10/13 John Edwards Dick Cheney 43.5 Total — — — 42.4 (mean) •Audience data from Commission on Presidential Debates: http://www,debates.org/pages/history.html. tjames Stockdale was the vice presidential candidate of the Reform Party in 1992. as Carlin and Bicak (1993) explain, "Regard- three basic purposes of political campaign less of whether or not the [vice presidential] discourse identified in the functional theory. debates have a significant influence on an The first three are essentially acclaims (self- election's outcome, they serve an important praise) of the presidential and vice presiden- educational function" (p. 120). Clearly, vice tial candidates (who they are and what they presidential debates merit scholarly atten- will do if elected), the fourth is defense (re- tion. sponse to attack), and the fifth is attack (crit- In order to illuminate these important icism of an opponent). campaign events further, this study analyzes Benoit (1999) argues that campaign dis- the seven American vice presidential de- course is functional, a means intended to bates held through 2004. Results are com- accomplish an end. The end is to secure pared with content analysis of the presiden- election to public office by obtaining the tial debates held in the same years (Benoit et most votes from citizens. A candidate solicits al., 2005; Benoit, Blaney, & Pier, 1998; Be- support from voters by persuading them that noit & Brazeal, 2002; Benoit & Wells, 1996; he or she is preferable to opponents (accord- Wells, 1999). First, the functional theory of ing to whatever criteria are most important political campaign discourse, which pro- to each voter). Three functions in political vides the underpinnings for this study, will campaign discourse can establish that one be discussed. Then specific hypotheses will candidate is preferable to another. Acclaims, be advanced. The method will be explained. or self-praise, identify the advantages of a This will be followed by presentation of re- candidate. Attacks, or criticisms of an oppo- sults and a discussion of the implications of nent, demonstrate the weaknesses of an op- the findings. ponent, thus increasing the attacking candi- date's net desirability. Defenses, or responses FUNCTIONAL THEORY OF to attacks, refute alleged weaknesses of a POLITICAL CAMPAIGN DISCOURSE candidate. These three functions work to- Carlin and Bicak (1993) identify five pur- gether as an informal form of cost-benefit poses of vice presidential debates: showing analysis: acclaims increase benefits, attacks the nominees' fitness to serve as president, increase an opponent's costs, and defenses explaining their proposed role in administra- reduce a candidate's alleged costs. The state- tion, explaining policy positions, defending ment that this is an "informal" version of their running mate, and attacking the oppo- cost-benefit is meant to indicate that func- nent. These purposes accord well with the tional theory does not assume that all voters 227 ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY BENOIT AND AIRNE quantify costs and benefits or combine them this expectation, Walter Mondale observed mathematically. Instead, acclaims, when in the first-ever vice presidential debate, in persuasive, tend to increase a candidate's 1976, that "Senator Dole has richly eamed perceived desirability. Attacks, when ac- his reputation as a hatchet man tonight, by cepted by the audience, should tend to re- ... stating that World War II and the Ko- duce an opponent's perceived desirability. rean War were Democratic wars." This Defenses, when effective, are likely to reduce means we should expect that vice presiden- a candidate's apparent costs. tial candidates will attack more than presi- Functional theory also posits that political dential candidates: campaign discourse occurs on only two H1. Attacks will be more frequent in vice presidential kinds of topics: policy (issues such as taxes, debates than in presidential debates. jobs, terrorism, health care. Social Security, education) and character (e.g., honesty, com- The remaining predictions are based on passion, courage, strength, leadership abil- functional theory and past research on pres- ity). Functional theory further subdivides idential debates. After we test a prediction both policy and character into three types. with data from the vice presidential debates, Policy includes past deeds, future plans, and we