Waisanen is a professor of strategic and leadership communication at the Marxe School of Public and International Affairs at Baruch College. He is the author of “ Improv for Democracy ” and Leadership Standpoints.” Novick has been a political comedian, camp counselor, editorial director, attorney, busboy, radio show host, professional speaker, child actor, and an elected official in New Jersey —but not necessarily in that order.
On a September day with crisp fall air and a cloudless sky, I (Joey, one of the authors) launched my first political campaign. Running for borough council member in Flemington, N.J., I decided to get out into the community and canvas door-to-door to stir up support for my cause. I walked up to an old Victorian house and knocked on the door. An elderly woman in a colorful house dress and comfortable slippers opened it. I introduced myself and prepared to launch into my scripted pitch.
“Oh, you’re running for council,” she said. “Well, tell me this, what are you going to do about our roads? And what’s your position: Would you fix them by raising taxes or issuing bonds?” Not knowing anything about the issue, I could have fumbled my way through a response. But observing the passion and knowledge this voter had in the moment, I decided to lean in and say, “Actually, I could bore you with a stock, vague answer, but I am out here today to listen to what you think about the issue. What do you think we should do?”
What followed was a master class and nuanced analysis from the voter on both sides of the issue. I nodded with each point, acknowledged her concerns and tried to build on points throughout the conversation. She ended with an appreciative “thank you!” The approach I took to say “yes, and …” in the moment and practice “leadership by listening” would never have been possible without having taken improv classes.
It’s an approach that I never lost sight of in winning five times and going on to serve for some 15 years as a borough council member.
In the fast-paced world of politics, communication skills can make or break a campaign. An ability to connect with voters, convey a compelling narrative, lead and adapt well to change, and inspire action are all crucial for success.
As the author of “Improv for Democracy ” and a former elected official in the story above, we think our political environment is missing something fundamental to both running for office and governing well: an improvisational mindset. Improvisational exercises and techniques can improve just about every communication and leadership skill, enabling candidates and politicians to connect with their audiences on a deeper level and ethically and effectively convey their messages.
Like skilled actors on unscripted televisions shows such as “ Whose Line Is It Anyway ” or “ Curb Your Enthusiasm,” developing an improvisational mindset involves holding one’s conclusions tentatively, standing ready to listen to and work with different viewpoints, seeking to say “yes, and …” and both building on and uniting with others as a starting point for public discourse. Critique and judgment are always available later, but an improvisational mindset always engages and works with what’s at hand first.
The term “improv” can bring up many different associations, so it’s important to clarify exactly what we mean here. In the political world, we see two extremes that continue to make for poor campaigning and governing: being overly scripted and robotic, or being completely unscripted and winging it. An adaptive, improvisational mindset walks a line between both approaches.
In a telling analysis of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes note how “the candidate who eschewed unscripted interactions with voters gave speeches that failed to connect her to a cause larger than herself.” In a post-campaign reflection on the Graham Norton show, Clinton shared as much herself, saying how in a presidential campaign redo she would not have withheld her genuine stories or capacities to observe, connect and establish greater presence with voters.
Yes, there were many more factors involved in that election, but at least one basic lesson shouldn’t be missed: Every candidate and public figure needs to work on practicing adaptiveness and mindfulness, in a “ state of active, open attention to the present,” sensing or responding to what’s actually happening in the moment with constituents.
One of the founding mothers of modern improvisational theater, Viola Spolin, said that improvising well is an “openness to contact with the environment and each other and [a] willingness to play. It is acting upon environment and allowing others to act upon present reality.” Can you imagine if every politician made that their mantra?
On the other hand, a completely opposite approach to campaigning and governance is also rife throughout our political environment. Whatever one thinks of former President Donald Trump, it’s widely agreed that his main mode is completely off-the-cuff (to the point of often making stuff up). And it’s not just Trump — plenty of other public figures have engaged in this style.
While it might seem that winging it is “improvisational,” this approach is actually disconnected from the broader environment and humanity, channeling self-focused and often pre-ordained conclusions. That kind of improvising does not do well because it’s closed to what’s outside oneself, rather than responding to “offers” all around — like the contribution the woman Joey met made to his overall learning and political run. Unmoored spontaneity lacks an outward focus that approaches people and issues with an ability to learn something new, pivot from mistakes, or deal with the developing nuances of different situations.
For political candidates and elected officials, an improvisational mindset prioritizes three specific skills.
The first is adaptive authenticity. Here, public figures learn to think on their feet, trust their instincts, embrace uncertainty and vulnerability, and respond creatively to the needs and interests of people in the moment, connecting with voters on a genuine and relatable level. This all starts with a commitment to truly dialoguing with rather than monologuing at audiences, building trust and rapport. Some call this “dynamic” rather than “static” authenticity. Moreover, candidates and officials can learn to respond to tough questions and engage in debates with poise and credibility, and to make a memorable, lasting impression.
The second is nonverbal connection. Improvisational training focuses on the elements of timing, tone, body language, voice modulation and similar nonverbal dimensions in communication that is vital to connecting with audiences. The ability to raise and lower one’s status alone involves nonverbal skills that are trainable, allowing one to bridge with diverse voter groups across different contexts.
Finally, there’s open storytelling. Effective storytelling in political campaigns requires concise and impactful messaging, but also the refinement of messages by listening to and experimenting with the concerns of different narratives. Closed, single stories that brook no dissent are dangerous in politics — so testing messaging and refining it based on broad, diverse audience feedback makes storytelling an open-ended project that an improvisational mindset is well suited to addressing.
If every candidate or elected official took an improv class, we’d see an immediate and measurable difference in the quality of our public discourse, the state of politics and the type of meaningful leadership all of us should expect from our leaders.
If politics is about serving all of one’s constituents well, it’s time for every candidate and public figure to make improvisational training a core part of their readiness for office.



















Eric Trump, the newly appointed ALT5 board director of World Liberty Financial, walks outside of the NASDAQ in Times Square as they mark the $1.5- billion partnership between World Liberty Financial and ALT5 Sigma with the ringing of the NASDAQ opening bell, on Aug. 13, 2025, in New York City.
Why does the Trump family always get a pass?
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche joined ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday to defend or explain a lot of controversies for the Trump administration: the Epstein files release, the events in Minneapolis, etc. He was also asked about possible conflicts of interest between President Trump’s family business and his job. Specifically, Blanche was asked about a very sketchy deal Trump’s son Eric signed with the UAE’s national security adviser, Sheikh Tahnoon.
Shortly before Trump was inaugurated in early 2025, Tahnoon invested $500 million in the Trump-owned World Liberty, a then newly launched cryptocurrency outfit. A few months later, UAE was granted permission to purchase sensitive American AI chips. According to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.”
“How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?” ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked.
“I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before,” Blanche replied, “as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.”
Blanche went on to boast about how the president is utterly transparent regarding his questionable business practices: “I don’t have a comment on it beyond Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.”
Sadly, Stephanopoulos didn’t offer the obvious response, which may have gone something like this: “OK, but the president and countless leading Republicans insisted that President Biden was the head of what they dubbed ‘the Biden Crime family’ and insisted his business dealings were corrupt, and indeed that his corruption merited impeachment. So how is being ‘transparent’ about similar corruption a defense?”
Now, I should be clear that I do think the Biden family’s business dealings were corrupt, whether or not laws were broken. Others disagree. I also think Trump’s business dealings appear to be worse in many ways than even what Biden was alleged to have done. But none of that is relevant. The standard set by Trump and Republicans is the relevant political standard, and by the deputy attorney general’s own account, the Trump administration is doing “exactly the same thing,” just more openly.
Since when is being more transparent about wrongdoing a defense? Try telling a cop or judge, “Yes, I robbed that bank. I’ve been completely transparent about that. So, what’s the big deal?”
This is just a small example of the broader dysfunction in the way we talk about politics.
Americans have a special hatred for hypocrisy. I think it goes back to the founding era. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in “Democracy In America,” the old world had a different way of dealing with the moral shortcomings of leaders. Rank had its privileges. Nobles, never mind kings, were entitled to behave in ways that were forbidden to the little people.
In America, titles of nobility were banned in the Constitution and in our democratic culture. In a society built on notions of equality (the obvious exceptions of Black people, women, Native Americans notwithstanding) no one has access to special carve-outs or exemptions as to what is right and wrong. Claiming them, particularly in secret, feels like a betrayal against the whole idea of equality.
The problem in the modern era is that elites — of all ideological stripes — have violated that bargain. The result isn’t that we’ve abandoned any notion of right and wrong. Instead, by elevating hypocrisy to the greatest of sins, we end up weaponizing the principles, using them as a cudgel against the other side but not against our own.
Pick an issue: violent rhetoric by politicians, sexual misconduct, corruption and so on. With every revelation, almost immediately the debate becomes a riot of whataboutism. Team A says that Team B has no right to criticize because they did the same thing. Team B points out that Team A has switched positions. Everyone has a point. And everyone is missing the point.
Sure, hypocrisy is a moral failing, and partisan inconsistency is an intellectual one. But neither changes the objective facts. This is something you’re supposed to learn as a child: It doesn’t matter what everyone else is doing or saying, wrong is wrong. It’s also something lawyers like Mr. Blanche are supposed to know. Telling a judge that the hypocrisy of the prosecutor — or your client’s transparency — means your client did nothing wrong would earn you nothing but a laugh.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.