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.











Ben Droz
Ben Droz







U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Pinnacle Bank Expo Center on the Nebraska State Fairgrounds on October 05, 2026 in Grand Island, Nebraska.
The President Invited Iran to Bomb My Home
I was driving home to San Diego from Los Angeles on Monday night when I heard that the President of the United States had offered both cities up to Iran as bomb targets. At a rally in Nebraska, defending his war, Trump told the crowd, “let [Iran] take out Los Angeles, let ‘em take out San Diego.” It was, he said, “a very small price to pay.”
I was coming from a Bernie Sanders rally for Proposition 40, the one-time tax on California billionaires that would send 90% of its revenue to healthcare. We desperately need it to pass because, in order to give tax breaks to billionaires, Trump signed a law that will strip health coverage from 10 million Americans; this tax will make sure we can still cover Californians. Call me crazy, but I think taxing billionaires one time so we can make sure kids in California get to see a doctor is a very small price to pay. I also think that even if Trump were joking, it is indefensible to make jokes about the potential destruction of so many lives. Human life is never a small price to pay. Human life is priceless.
Plus, the reality is: here in San Diego, we’re already paying the price for Trump’s actions, and it’s not small at all. He has gutted FEMA, tried to kill climate resiliency programs, and destroyed public health standards, while his signature law is set to cut off health insurance and food support for hundreds of thousands of San Diegans. Like plenty of American cities, San Diego is already busy finding local solutions to respond to the problems this president has recklessly created.
Not to mention, at least 19 American service members have been killed in this war already. Human rights monitors have documented more than 3,600 dead in Iran by April alone. Here at home, gas is sitting just pennies below its all-time record. Taxpayers have already spent more than $45 billion on the war, while Trump’s oil and gas portfolio has grown by roughly $15.5 million this year alone. Of course anything is a “small price” to someone paying free.99 for this war, and profiting from it. Meanwhile, We the People are paying twice: first for the war, and then for the consequences of that war. But now he wants San Diego to pay a third time, flippantly offering us up to Iran.
It is worth noticing which cities he thought to name. Were San Diego and Los Angeles strategically chosen to signify something to his audience, or were they simply the first cities that came to mind as expendable places? Either way, the effect is to normalize—-and to gauge a crowd’s reaction to–the idea of massive violence in major California cities, suitable targets because of their perceived liberal lean. So what if Iran needs to bomb a little bit of America before the war can be over? Who cares, says Trump, if they target Los Angeles and San Diego?
By the way, why didn’t he offer up San Francisco, the free-love hippie-town MAGA loves to hate (and also my birthplace)? Could it be because that’s where the tech titans live? The same ones who joined Trump for Xi Jinping’s state dinner, a guest list worth a combined $2.4 trillion?
San Diego may have fewer billionaires, but it is home to more than 115,000 active-duty service members and 230,000 veterans. One in six active-duty sailors–in the entire Navy–is stationed here. So is one in four Marines. You cannot throw a rock in this county without hitting a military family: brats and spouses and veterans are among us. I got out of the Navy last year after ten years, and eight of those were here in San Diego. When Trump says “let ‘em take out San Diego,” he’s talking about the backbone of the United States military. He’s also talking about the people fighting his war.
San Diego has not been watching this war from the sidelines. Today, the USS Abraham Lincoln returns to North Island after an almost yearlong deployment to the Middle East that featured food shortages, broken toilets, and mold in the showers after 286 days at sea without a single port call. Eight sailors in the Lincoln’s strike group attempted suicide, but in August, when a reporter asked whether the deployment had gone on too long, Trump said “not nearly long enough.” Now he has told a crowd in Nebraska that we should let Iran take out the city those sailors call home. These are sociopathic sentiments.
Last week at Quantico, Pete Hegseth closed his address to the force by telling them, “President Trump has your back and so do I.” To the contrary, President Trump has put one of the biggest military towns in the country forward as a target for our adversaries. With friends like these, the “domestic” in “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” starts to sound a lot less hypothetical.
San Diego is home to Naval Air Station North Island, Naval Base San Diego, Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, the Point Loma submarine base, Camp Pendleton, and Miramar (and I have been permanently stationed at or trained at all of them). If Iran bombed San Diego and Los Angeles, aside from the devastating loss of life, it would cripple an immense share of our national security readiness.
And for what, exactly? Trump says the war is “essentially almost over with.” This is the same man who claimed in June 2025 that Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated,” then launched a war over it anyway on February 28. More than seven months later, he wants us to believe two things at once: that we’ve basically won, and that we might need to sacrifice an American city or two to finish winning. If the war is almost over, why does anybody need to take out San Diego?
I wonder if Trump’s endorsed candidate for California’s 48th District here in San Diego County will respond to these remarks. He recently said “no pain, no gain,” when referring to the gas prices San Diegans are paying. Jim Desmond, would you apply that same mindset if we were bombed? Or do you have the moral courage to stand up for the people you’re running to represent?
Last November, six Democratic members of Congress, all veterans, including Senator Mark Kelly, recorded a video reminding troops of their duty to disobey unlawful orders, restating the law that says so. Trump called it “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH,” and then his Justice Department went looking for an indictment, which a grand jury refused. The president treated reading the law out loud to the troops as a capital offense, but then he himself invited a foreign enemy to destroy two American cities, possibly as a punchline. Is anyone calling the latter sedition? Who is demanding accountability?
Calling our lives a small price to pay affirms a moral bankruptcy, as well as an obvious dereliction of duty to the office he holds. While we can’t impeach him or invoke the 25th Amendment ourselves, we must stop being so quiet about what we’re paying already. We can make our voices heard by calling our representatives, writing op-eds, knocking doors, phone banking, and voting in defiance of the man who threatens the safety of our city. Ballots are already arriving in mailboxes. Vote, and vote yes on 40 (and no on 41 and 42).
Trump has been harming our cities for a while, but now he is inviting our military adversaries to join him in the harm. If we have any self-respect as Americans, we must not tolerate our leaders disregarding the dignity of lives in this way. We must fight for our home.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.