Over recent weeks, the Democratic Party has seen an almost unstoppable streak of wins for the Harris-Walz campaign. In what I must imagine was a strategic decision, President Biden relinquished the ticket just after allowing Republicans to nominate the all-too-uninspired JD Vance as VP. Since then, an energetic DNC and a series of positive social media appearances have brought Harris and Walz closer to the Democrats’ ever-growing big tent, while Vance and Trump seem only to appeal to the already insular MAGA crowd.
Then came last month’s presidential debate, a renewed opportunity for Democrats to explain Harris’s ambiguous policy choices on child care, paid maternity leave and foreign policy. Meanwhile, the debate offered a chance to shake off the embarrassment of Biden’s geriatric June performance and further redefine this race as one helmed by Harris. With Harris in the hot seat, the debate allowed a shift away from discourse around Biden’s age and focused voter attention on Trump’s sins in office. Meanwhile, Trump seemingly has yet to fully pivot against Harris as a candidate, spending significant time during the debate instead addressing President Biden’s faults.
As with all debates against Trump, his lies and attacks on character ran rampant. Trump again focused on what he labels a total failure of an economy, with Biden and Harris supposedly to blame for rampant inflation and runaway gas prices. Of course, these have been rapidly returning to normal levels since they were elevated during Covid, and at any rate are nothing new to the Republican toolbox of easy-bake talking points. Similarly, we’ve received a new slate of preposterous claims from the former president.
Trump again pushed his bizarre claims of Harris’s changing racial identity; [JUMP] he has yet to grasp her dual Indian and Black heritage. When discussing Afghanistan negotiations, Trump mentioned having sent “Abdul,” the apparent leader of the Taliban, pictures of his house. Perhaps the strangest of all was Trump’s claim that Haitian immigrants are “eating the dogs” and cats of Springfield, Ohio residents, backed up by the highly reputable source of “people on television.” Although outlandish remarks are nothing new to Trump’s debate strategy, this round of contentious drivel has seen a new level of flagrant disregard for truth and integrity.
In spite of Harris’s emphasis on “moving forward” from petty remarks and attacks on each other’s character, she too was more than happy to pursue a personal angle in the debate. While Trump’s typical strategy revolves around mudslinging to obfuscate policy (and he has indeed continued this pattern), Harris spent more overall time in personal attacks (17:25 minutes vs Trump’s 12:54). This is particularly notable as a departure from precedent in June’s Trump Biden debate, where Trump spent almost 50% more time disparaging. Throughout the debate, points about anything from the economy to foreign policy were interspersed with comments about the dangers of a second Trump administration and denigrations of the former president’s character.
In some respect, this is a necessary evil. Trump’s reputation at this point precedes him, with January 6th and his continued comments suggesting an authoritarian streak that the Dems are perfectly content to mine. Trump indeed poses a legitimate threat to the integrity of our political institutions, and this provides Harris a seemingly limitless source of disparagement against the former president. It’s undoubtedly important to point out these dangers, even from a point of duty to the country’s preservation, let alone from simple campaign strategy.
Regardless of the validity these points may hold, this pattern having held through every debate since 2016 has completely degraded the legitimacy of this event as a platform for sincere, even-handed campaign platforming and good-faith debate. The Presidential Debate was once a chance for the American people to understand their candidates’ policies, contrast their public speaking, and determine their relatability. The loss of this platform, (or at least its transformation into a deeply unserious charade,) even if necessary for current political praxis to avoid a second Trump term, is truly saddening.
The debate did little to elucidate either candidate’s plans (or “concepts of a plan”.) Harris, to her credit, mentioned the specifics of some economic policies regarding family and new homeowner tax credit and subsidy opportunities, while Trump failed to specify any particular aims in anything but the broadest of strokes. Even so, Harris left much to be desired in terms of her campaign details. Moderators prompted the Vice President multiple times with particular instances of herself shifting in position, and each time Harris shifted to talking in general terms about policies which, for the most part, have been standard Democratic rhetoric since the Obama administration.
In particular, Harris and the Democratic Party in general have been rather silent regarding the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict, at least when it comes to the specifics of a possible ceasefire. While Harris was prompted to discuss the issue, and did indeed answer that she saw a need for a two-state solution and more tact from Israel on civilian casualties, she also furthered typical right-to-defense arguments for Israel’s actions and failed to give any details on actual policy which might bring about this, nor any other, ceasefire agreement in the region.
This was hardly a surprise. The DNC similarly failed to address the issue adequately, refusing to host Palestinian voices in the midst of the conflict and not addressing plans to seek a ceasefire beyond the vague terms Harris had already been quoted on. If the largest opportunity for the establishment of a 2024 Democratic platform wouldn’t bring progress on this front, one could hardly expect Harris herself to do so on the debate stage.
Importantly, this is far from an oversight. Israel’s military actions remain extremely divisive, even within each party, and failure to definitively pick a side is clearly intended to allow plausible deniability on Harris’s part in the minds of undecided voters. The current primary goal of the Democratic Party at large is to shift moderate Republicans away from Trump, who has already done more than enough to push them away himself. As a result, Harris has pushed nothing but milquetoast, broad-appeal policies which allow moderates room to interpret the Harris/Walz campaign positively.
The big question is this: will Harris’s approach work?
For many moderates, the debate was a success in showing Kamala’s competence as a candidate and legitimizing her after a swift departure by President Biden. On the other hand, her failure to address policy specifics has alienated many voters who seek particular sides on issues, whether those be Israel, taxes, public healthcare, or any number of contentious topics. If Harris’s plan turns out to be a success, I will cheer it on; for now, Harris’s lack of commitment fails to appeal to me, and seems a seriously unwise choice for approaching the moderate vote. People who aren’t yet convinced clearly won’t be voting on personality, and need to see the particulars of Harris’s policy proposals. Even if committing to one side of a divisive issue could alienate some voters, failure to pick any side is just as off-putting. Moreover, the further we shift our electoral politics away from issues and policies towards party divisions and personal character, the less real choice any of our votes really count for. If we don’t know what policies we’re voting for, what kind of democracy do we really have?
Harris seems to have won the debate, and her recent momentum against Trump gives much reason for hope, but as long as she and the Democratic Party in general insist on vagueness and noncommittal posturing, her victory in the election will remain in question.