Debate Anticipation: Harris vs. Trump
As the political scenario in the U.S. continues to change at a breakneck speed, the debate on September 10 between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump promises to be a significant moment in the 2024 election cycle. It is not just a contest of styles or performances; it is a maelstrom for democracy to survive or thrive in the next four years. The debate’s outcome could indicate whether the nation will have a president who respects the electorate, who has any kind of vision for leading this place, and especially whether the American political system still operates under rules and norms that have some kind of rational political discourse as their basis.
This debate’s significance goes far beyond the two people engaged in it; it gets right at the principles that underpin our democratic system. Pew asked folks what they thought about political debates. The response was that, by a substantial margin, people view them as essential to the functioning of democracy.
Understanding Gish Gallop: Trump’s Debate Strategy
But if you consider what a debate is and how it is structured, then you can see this is very much a half-truth. A debate, at its best, allows for the side-by-side presentation of alternate visions of governance. What constitutes “right order” and what doesn’t. Donald Trump is very good at the part of debate that isn’t really a debate at all: walling off his opponent from any reasonable communication with the public.
The debate approaching between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump is significant for both reasons of opportunity and necessity. Harris is making her first appearance as a debater at this level, and what better stage to strut one’s stuff than the presidential debate stage? That has certainly been the argument made throughout history by any number of candidates who have taken to this platform—a platform, in fact, that goes back to the 1960s for televised presidential appearances.
Ever since that time, candidates have tried to treat it like a connection moment. And in our modern era, with TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter being so evidently tied to political expression, this “connection” moment has only gotten more and more critical.
Harris’s Evolving Debate Style and Assertiveness
Walking into a situation where Harris is on the defensive politically with a historically low approval rating while Trump is soaring in terms of connection moments—and maybe even with as much control over the media as any 20th-century politician could have—Harris and her supporters have to bake in a bit of insecurity before she has a chance to win the debate.
The way Trump operates in a debate is somewhat like a Gish Gallop, in that he overwhelms opponents, making it very difficult for them to respond in a way that is clear and effective. This technique, while not well regarded for its logical rigor, proves to be quite effective in muddying the waters of political discourse. Harris’s debate strategy must counter this by maintaining an unflinching focus on key points she must make, both in their surface form and in their deeper, more substantive implications. Ironically, Harris may not be able to work as freely through her material, and as much by instinct, as her male counterparts because both she and her content will be subject to more intense scrutiny and evaluation—both for their effectiveness and for what they say about gender in politics.
Today’s political world demands not just resonance but also a connection to be made on the emotional level. In this respect, Vice President Kamala Harris is no different from any of the other candidates in the Democratic primary. She must fight for every drop of tenderness within the electorate, and that is quite a few drops. Harris must enable voters to feel her presence. It is not enough to be present in person or with large, bold prints on a campaign poster. One must be present within the heart of the voter. Harris’s opportunity comes when she discusses the economy, healthcare, and social justice. She can argue these issues, as she did in the primary debates, with a rude tenacity not seen since the office of Lenny Bruce.
The Impact of Microphone Rules on Debate Dynamics
Some people may argue that Trump’s method is merely different but still represents an effective kind of political engagement that speaks to a large number of voters. They say that Harris’s traditional style in the debate was not sufficiently different from her campaign’s “talking points” to win over voters who might be seeking something more compelling. But Trump is not the gauge by which we should be measuring political engagement. His way of doing things might work for him, but it doesn’t mean it works for most voters or would be a good substitute for more effective and clearer engagement.
This debate affects far more than just the candidates involved for the average voter. It is a moment in American democratic society that invites not just a reckoning but a rooting for something better—better political discourse, better policies that improve the lives of citizens. The average American should care about these two men’s worthiness to lead precisely because they have a kind of authority that doesn’t belong to just anyone and because their style and substance in argument affect the quality and sort of discourse we all get to participate in after they’ve done the heavy lifting.
In conclusion, the debate between Harris and Trump on September 10th is more than just a political occasion. It reflects the fundamental values of our democracy. The two candidates—Harris and Trump—represent two very different worlds in America, and at this moment, when we are seeing events in the political realm that are hard to fathom, this debate serves as a good reason to look at three of the important ingredients of any successful political conversation: effective communication, gender dynamics, and specificity.
As we get ready for this intense confrontation, one important question hangs in the balance. Will we see a moment that transforms what we consider the standard for political debate, or will we just fall back on the chaos that has come to define up-to-now political discourse? The future of American democracy may rest on the answer to that question.