Kamala Harris’s Debate Debut
The present-day politics of the United States is a polarized affair where the acts of governing and the institutions that make up the government are increasingly under fire from both sides of the political aisle. In this environment, most people would not be surprised to find that a public debate is not seen as an opportunity for a candidate to discuss planks in a platform but instead as a contest for narrative supremacy. A recent debate featuring Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump was not just about who might win the upcoming election; it was about a vision for governing a country wrestling with many issues.
This article contends that the debate acted as a crucial litmus test for both candidates, showcasing their strengths and weaknesses, along with the underlying tensions that shape American politics today. It unpacks how Kamala Harris’s performance could recalibrate her political trajectory while simultaneously re-exacting Donald Trump’s influence over a big chunk of the electorate.
This isn’t just a contest between two candidates; it is an opportunity to rewrite the story of an America that is somehow governed, an America in which the political system is not entirely broken. Polls show that about 60% of Americans think the system is in shambles, and for many Americans, these debates are the only real chance to get a good, long look at the potential leaders for the next four years. If someone was poised to make this political case at this debate, it was Kamala Harris, the vice president and first woman of color in that office. Harris was the one charged with occupying the “narrative” from the second slot on the stage, and she did it with a combination of confidence and aggression that is typical of her on-script style of leading a narrative in her direction.
Trump’s Rally Attendance Controversy
Understanding the implications of this debate requires knowing its context. Kamala Harris was stepping into the presidential debate spotlight for the very first time. She was under enormous pressure to both counter the established persona of Donald Trump and to put forth her own policies, many of which are still not clear to the American electorate. Trump, on the other hand, has the appearance of a debate performance history with him and has a loyal base that counts on him for entertainment and for making completely outrageous statements. This debate was held against the urgent backdrop of several enormous issues: immigration, Trump’s pet issue; healthcare, which is still a huge concern for many voters; and international relations, which I’d argue is the most pressing issue for voters and for the country right now. Harris’s performance was stronger in several ways than I expected it would be.
One significant aspect of the recent debate was the way Vice President Kamala Harris carried herself when challenging former President Donald Trump. Rather than simply parroting criticisms, Harris strung together a series of well-crafted darts aimed at Trump’s authority and credibility. One of the most effective—and pointed—moments was when she highlighted the fact that Trump seems to have only a fraction of the support he used to enjoy, using diminishing crowd sizes at his rallies as evidence. If you can make your opponent look weak, you make yourself look strong. Even so, the take-down wasn’t without its winks and nods to the audience, because in politics, appearances matter.
Fact-Checking and Moderation Challenges
The integrity of the discussion in the debate was ensured by the role played by the moderators. Their real-time fact-checking of Trump’s claims about immigrants and crime, for instance, showed how a media outlet today might need to take greater responsibility than in the past for ensuring a presentation of the truthful facts when the event in question is happening live. No one was around to ensure the truthful presentation of facts when, say, an event in the story of the last presidential campaign was happening live, as when candidate Trump was being rallied up for the big-do time on national television. Of course, following the event, the onus now seems to lie with the media to make sure that an accurate timeline ends up being part of the story that’s told.
While some may critique Kamala Harris’s debate performance, saying it lacked the oomph to win over independent voters or that it got lost in the Trump-induced mist of aggressive debate tactics, we have to remember a couple of things. First, the debate is partially about spectacle—who looks good and who looks bad. And second, the debate is also partially about who makes the better emotional argument. I don’t think Trump is suspecting most of the second half of the debate. I think he just threw out whatever insults he could think of, trying to make Harris look weak. And she didn’t look weak. Some will say she looked better than he did, and I’m not sure you can debate that, really, with any kind of authority.
Foreign Policy Stances and Economic Plans
The average American may not think about this often, but the appearance of Harris and Trump in a head-to-head debate signifies much more than just the next presidential election. It is a moment ripe with the opportunity to reflect on some of the fundamental questions that any democratic society must confront: What is the importance of debates in a democracy? What do they tell us about the nature and health of our political system? On the most basic level, we might say that debates, like elections, are a kind of conversation between the governors and the governed.
With the election approaching, America stands on the threshold of something potentially transformative. The debate wasn’t just about the candidates. It was also about the near-universal notion that democracy is at stake. Narratives are of the essence in this. And it was essential for the candidates to win the audience over to their narrative. But winning the audience over is also about winning the future, because in the end, the choices we make today are the ones that determine how fractured a nation we will have tomorrow.