After watching last Tuesday’s presidential debate it is no wonder Napoleon Bonaparte observed long ago that “in politics stupidity is not a handicap.”
The fortunate truth for former President Donald Trump is that his stupidity is virtually a non-factor in the minds of his most resolute defenders. In fact, his brashness is what many of his supporters appreciate most about him – and it was on full display in the second presidential debate.
Surrounding Trump is a culture that broods upon the subordination of opponents, the silencing of dissent through obnoxiousness and the complete disintegration of any political norm that previously sustained a relatively ‘normal’ state of political affairs. “Trumpism” in other words, has pervaded through social media and echoed through the world of podcasting and “independent media”, effectively cutting the head off of any standard of etiquette that was previously important when leading political movements – similar to how “woke” ideology slashed down the liberal left in its quest for dominance.
I do, however, sound especially frustrated with Trump simply because of the illogical behavior of many of his supporters. It is just not the case that people worship Vice President Kamala Harris like the obsessive right-wing does Trump. An alarming number of his supporters, in a seemingly Messianic struggle, tirelessly defend his every move and utterance, no matter how untrue or incoherent it is. Often what you hear is the false and evasive platitude that Trump is “just like that”, as if being cantankerous by nature permits wrong actions or somehow renders them any less objectionable. The fact is, the Republican party is perfectly content to rally behind incoherence if it succeeds as a political strategy. Dissension, put differently, is de rigueur of the GOP – a daringly simple yet vigorous instance of domestic realpolitik.
A relevant example of this grovelling “defense” was after the debate in the spin room, where Sen. JD Vance defended Trump’s outrageous claims that Haitian immigrants were eating the pets belonging to residents of Springfield, Ohio, which city officials have repeatedly refuted. If you browse around X, you will see that vast amounts of right-wing accounts picked up the rumor and ran away with it. Napoleon was right, what else is there to say?
Harris, on the other hand, performed much better than I expected her to. It is only fitting that Harris – a former prosecutor – should be able to quickly handle a failed businessman (especially when she brought up crowd sizes, a topic Trump can’t resist.) However, though I give credit to Harris with regard to substance, I found her “middle-class” come up story to be annoyingly redundant – an obvious page from the playbook of her “boss”, President Joe Biden. It was also her way of deflecting from the first question, which I thought was a miserable mistake.
Harris also worries me because she is shrouded in secrecy, rarely appearing in public to do interviews and only showing up when the scene is scripted and set up for her ahead of time. Attempting to lead a “revolutionary” political campaign in what her party oft-considers the most important election in our nation’s history, while at the same time deliberately shielding herself from the public, is a puzzling contradiction.
Lowly as we are, us “proles” determine elections and will most certainly determine the outcome of the one in November. The Democrats know this; that’s why Harris picked Tim Walz as her VP – to hopefully shelter themselves from the obviously valid criticism that the Democratic Party has been taken over by corporate power and the influence of big money. To be the party of “everyone” – an illogical idea to begin with – is the theme Democrats are so anxious to recapture. However, they have a tough task before them. Reports of censorship and the unwavering commitment to endless war make it difficult for her to win the support of the progressive wing of her own party. This tells us all something very important about her candidacy.
Did Harris outline specific policy proposals? She did better than Trump, but all Americans are used to the same debate every election cycle. It was more about appealing to their constituency in the intense cultural war rather than address actual policy. Whether or not you agree with Harris’ proposals (which I know many readers do not), it can be contented without much difficulty that she outlined more of her policy than Trump, who claimed to have “concepts of a plan” and that he is a “leader in fertilization”.
There is also outrage surrounding the moderation of the debate. I would not argue against the idea that Harris was dealt a slightly better hand, however, it can be argued just as effectively that Trump brought the pressure on himself with his repeated lies and incessant ramblings. When you lie more, you get fact-checked more.
So who do I think won the night? Harris, easily. I don’t see how anyone could rationally make the argument that Trump won the debate. Just as Biden was pitiful in the first debate, it’s time for MAGA, even once, to accept defeat.
Post-debate polling generally agrees with me and many believe that Harris got the debate she needed to begin to pull away with a lead. However, the race is still a toss-up and none of us will know what will happen until that fateful day in November.
In the meantime, let’s all be good to one another. It is safe to say that these two parties do not represent the American people, and even my staunchest critics in the comments agree with me on that, even if it’s with a degree of resentment and anger.
Let’s see how it goes. We’ll get through it somehow.
Peace be with you all.
