A Tale of Two Debates
The last decade of American politics has often felt like a lifetime. My own interest in, and understanding of, the ins and outs of the Electoral College, Congress, the Senate filibuster rules and the myriad other moving parts of the US democratic system is relatively recent. Even over that short period, anger and division seem to have gone from a low simmer to full-on boil.
As I’ve watched and learned over the last probably 15 years or so, the increasing tribalism of that country’s citizens has often been the story. Are Americans more polarized because they feel disconnected from the system, defined by institutions such as Congress, the judicial system, the press? How does half the country believe that the chaos and wacky conspiracy nonsense of a possible second Trump term is some sort of logical antidote to the actual problems faced by them?
I Just Couldn’t Watch
I tuned in to the late June debate between Biden and Trump with trepidation. This was not going to be the Joe Biden of 2020 who could, at minimum, hold his own on a debate stage.
As the incumbent, his job on that stage would involve not only defending his record but also reminding viewers of the many failings of the Trump administration: 400,000 Covid deaths, 40% of which could have been avoided had Trump not consistently disparaged the science of testing, treatment and mitigation; a merry-go-round of hiring and firing of top-level advisors and staff; the failed attempt to overturn the results of a free and fair election that Trump lost, and on and on.
Many Democrats were frustrated that Biden wasn’t willing to step down after a single four-year term, to be content to serve as a “bridge” (his word) to a new generation of Democratic leaders which, rightly or not, they interpreted as an implicit promise not to run for a second term.
The Covid pandemic, a once-in-a-lifetime worldwide earth-shaking event, demanded drastic measures such as government income support to many millions of citizens. An affordable housing shortage that had been building for decades, exploded as inflation surged due to supply chain disruptions, labour shortages, and a sharp spike in oil prices largely driven by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Despite similar problems in every other country, US voters were predictably going to blame the guy at the top for high housing and food prices, and Biden’s stubbornly low popularity numbers reflected this reality. Along with his advanced age, these fundamental roadblocks didn’t bode well for a second Biden run for the White House.
And so, we watched a much-diminished leader shuffle to the podium, stumble and lose his train of thought, and mostly fail to make the case that he was fit to serve another four years, let alone prosecute the case against a Trump return to the White House.
With a knot in the pit of my stomach, I turned the TV off after the first 15 minutes and I tuned out of politics for the next few weeks, demoralized and despondent that we were destined for another four messy, chaotic years under a convicted felon, someone unfit in countless ways to lead the United States.
Biden Drops Out
Over the following 24 days, a trickle of criticism and insistence from Democratic politicians and influencers that Biden needed to step down became a tsunami. On July 21st he relented. His endorsement of Vice-President Kamala Harris followed within minutes and a political earthquake upended what had looked to be a Republican romp to power.
Harris quickly vacuumed up support from a large cast of Democratic movers and shakers: senators Elizabeth Warren and Mark Kelly, the Clintons, state governors Gavin Newsom of California and Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, and eventually the Obamas. That essentially quashed any possibility of some version of a condensed primary contest to select an alternative standard bearer, and Harris quickly became the de facto nominee.
A Joyful Convention
The Democratic convention to officially nominate Harris kicked off in Chicago on August 19th. The excitement was off the charts as what originally looked like a going-through-the-motions event with an aging and unpopular Biden was reborn with a younger, mixed-race woman at the helm. Harris’s selection of Minnesota governor Tim Walz added a flavour of the ‘aw shucks everyman’ to the ticket. His high school coaching and rifle-toting hunting experience seemed tailor-made to appeal to the desirable but elusive swing voters needed to win the Electoral College.
For the next few weeks, the Democratic Party basked in mostly positive media coverage and the enthusiasm of the party faithful, as campaign volunteers and donor cash flooded in. What had become a significant polling deficit in the seven or so states where the race for president will be decided, soon reverted to a neck and neck contest. Republicans fumed that Harris wasn’t doing interviews and press scrums, while Harris’s rallies attracted crowds at least as large, if not larger, than Trump’s.
The Big One
As I gathered up snacks and settled in for Tuesday’s debate, my mood was a whole lot more positive than back in June. Sure, Harris was prone to answers that could be labeled as word salads but so was her opponent. More of a problem was the unfair reality that as a woman, the bar for coming across as strong and presidential would be high. On the flip side, Trump would need to tamp down his id – the part of him that’s driven by instincts and desires, a tall order for sure.
Pundits reported that Trump’s advisors were desperately trying to coach him not to ‘be himself’ and devolve into the rambling and often incoherent tirades he showcases at his rallies or on his perversely named social media platform Truth (Lie) Social. Hoping that past wouldn’t prove to be prologue, they crossed their fingers that ‘friendly, smiling’ Trump would make an appearance. Their worst fears came true.
Harris Eats His Lunch
The contrast at that debate couldn’t have been more striking: sane vs crazy, unflappable vs unhinged. Harris had Trump’s number and she was merciless.
Aside from the first ten minutes or so, he scowled and she smiled. He spoke rapidly and angrily while she used a measured tone. He avoided looking at her, using the pronouns ‘she’ and ‘her’ while she often turned to look at him addressing him directly with ‘you.’ He spoke in apocalyptic language versus her appeal to ‘turn the page on division’ and focus on common ideals.
New York Times columnist David French wrote, “It’s like she’s debating MAGA Twitter come to life.” At one point Trump drifted off into a rant about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, catching and eating local residents’ pets. Unless you’re steeped in the right-wing Fox/QAnon/Lie Social universe, you could be forgiven for not being current on this sort of bats--t crazy.
The moderators stepped in to assert that there was zero evidence for this claim, yet Trump doubled down, eating up precious debate time to insist on a conspiracy that many viewers knew nothing about. Unfortunately, his history of promoting blatant lies and fringe views has immunized him in the eyes of much of the public. “That’s just Trump being Trump,” they say, shrugging off behaviour that would have been absolute kryptonite for past presidential candidates.
Still, it was gratifying to see Kamala Harris calmly and coolly dangling, like catnip, rehearsed and obvious (to us at least) digs on such topics as the disdain his former advisors have for him or that people leave his rallies early out of boredom and exhaustion. And he bit, every time. As one podcaster chuckled, “It’s like the cartoon where the coyote draws a fake tunnel on a rock wall with the road leading into it.” Unlike the roadrunner who always turns the tables on Wile E. Coyote, Trump ran straight into the wall, every time.
Writer and journalist Ezra Klein noted how Harris’s strategy put Trump’s fundamental weaknesses on display. Here is someone who can, over the course of a short ninety-minute debate, be repeatedly goaded and manipulated to stray from his own stated goals and intentions. He and his debate prep team knew this would be a Harris tactic and yet he simply couldn’t help himself.
Given this display of undisciplined, self-absorbed egomania, how would he be different in the world of international high-level interactions? How could he be different? If Trump’s responses hadn’t already highlighted her message in neon letters ten feet tall, Harris made it painfully clear, “Putin is a dictator who would eat you for lunch.”
The Odds Are Still Even
While it was satisfying to watch someone cut Trump down to size in front of a national audience, the reality of this election is that Harris needs to bowl a perfect game. Any misstep or gaffe will be magnified and twisted into a reason not to vote for her. Meanwhile Trump will continue to skate over a multitude of what should be disqualifying statements, positions and actions. Apparently a self-proclaimed billionaire businessman with enough baggage to sink the Titanic still has a real shot at winning.
His multiple indictments and court cases continue to be tied up by bogus legal arguments from his lawyers aided by friendly judges who have been twisting themselves into pretzels to either water down or outright dismiss them. We hope to learn in mid November, after the election, what sentence, if any, he will serve as a convicted felon in the ‘hush money’ case.
I’ve taken some small comfort in the uncanny accuracy of historian and political analyst Alan Lichtman. His thirteen ‘Keys to the White House’ have led to his correct prediction in 9 of the last 10 elections, only failing to call the 2000 election in which the Supreme Court awarded the presidency to George W. Bush over Al Gore. Lichtman recently named Harris the winner this November.
And if you’re still nervous about current polling that predicts results no better than a coin flip, there’s this. Singer Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris to her 283 million Instagram followers within minutes of the end of the debate. The American electorate needs to Shake It Off and finally welcome the Daylight, because crowning Harris as The Lucky One with a November win would be Better Than Revenge.