Wayne O'Leary

The Great Debate

Kamala Harris wants to “turn the page.” It’s a slogan with multiple meanings. Does she want to turn the page after a decade of Donald Trump dominating the political headlines, or transition from four years of Joe Biden’s administration, of which she was an integral part? Or does page turning imply that with Kamala the sordid past will disappear from memory, ending the strife between red and blue, and allowing America to start afresh, a united people at last? Or does it simply mean a reshuffling of personalities at the top of the government?

However defined, the process of starting anew with no baggage will be a tricky maneuver. But, then, Harris is a tricky politician. And make no mistake, the Democratic nominee for president is, first and foremost, a politician. The Harris campaign is not a movement; this is not the fulfillment of the Bernie Sanders revolution. It’s even questionable whether the candidate is really a true progressive at all, despite Donald Trump’s silly labelling of her as a Marxist.

Democratic progressives Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are currently supporting Harris, as is the unaffiliated progressive Sanders, however reluctantly, but they have no choice if they want to remain relevant within Democratic Party circles. The only other options this year are to opt out, or start an independent third-party effort, and we saw how far Bobby Kennedy Jr. got against our rigged electoral system.

Harris made her reputation in California as a prosecuting district attorney and crime-focused attorney general (shades of Thomas E. Dewey!), operating securely within her party’s establishment; she’s never been a crusader. She subsequently stopped off at the U.S. Senate for a cup of coffee (2017-20) en route to becoming Joe Biden’s identity-politics pick for veep in 2020, leaving no particular legislative accomplishments of note behind her.

Harris dallied with progressivism in 2019 when it seemed the popular route to the presidency. She endorsed a wide range of left-leaning proposals (since disavowed) that included, momentarily, Medicare for All. Calculating Kamala then dropped the progressive agenda like a hot potato when her campaign failed to catch on and the Zeitgeist changed. Like other “moderate” Democrats without ideological moorings (Bill Clinton comes to mind), she can be a liberal if you want a liberal, or a conservative if you want a conservative.

Harris’ lack of core progressivism has become obvious in recent days with her disgracefully opportunistic announcement that she was “honored” to have the support of former Vice President Dick Cheney, estranged from the GOP because of MAGA attacks on his daughter Liz. Democrats with memories that extend back further than last weekend will recall when Cheney was the Donald Trump of his day — the scourge of liberals and the architect of the Bush Middle East war policy. No matter; we’re turning the page with Kamala and forging “a new way forward.”

The page turning began in earnest with the over-hyped Sept. 10 Harris-Trump debate, which sponsor ABC called “historic.” The corporate media, which skews pro-Harris, is all agog over the novelty of a possible mixed-race female president; it considers everything about the Harris candidacy — her nomination, her convention, her so-called interview on CNN — historic. (Now, if the U.S. enacted, say, national health insurance, that would truly be historic.)

As for the debate itself, it was, like most modern debates, rather humdrum, predictable and uninformative. Harris, a polished debater, beat Trump to the punch a few times, insulting him before he could insult her. She also had a more extensive list of empty spending promises under the rubric of “the opportunity economy” — a $50,000 tax deduction to start a small business, a $25,000 down-payment grant for first-time homebuyers, a $6,000 child tax credit — offered up with little explanation of how the cost ($1.7 trillion over 10 years) would be financed. Trump, as usual, called for tax cuts and increased tariffs.

Trump dominated the opening segment on the economy, his rhetorical strong suit and the Achilles’ heel of the Democrats, which the clearly biased ABC moderators kept unusually short, perhaps to benefit his opponent. Harris had the edge in the closing minutes, when Trump appeared to tire or lose focus.

Beyond that, things were pretty much a wash. Trump seemed overconfident (he was born overconfident), ill-prepared and bored; Harris seemed robotic and excessively programmed. The Donald, still adjusting to the changed circumstances, saved most of his fire for Joe Biden, who, unfortunately, was not there.

Several debate moments stood out. Trump’s bizarre riff about pet-eating illegal immigrants was a new high (or low) or him, rivaled only by his insistence that Israel would cease to exist under another Democratic president. Harris falsely took credit for Biden’s international coalition in support of Ukraine and shamelessly appealed to red-state America by stressing she’s a gun owner. Both candidates avoided responding to queries on immigration policy. In Kamala’s case, in particular, refusing to answer difficult questions has become a campaign trademark.

Many of Trump’s statements were predictably outlandish (e.g. Nancy Pelosi caused Jan. 6th), and ABC staffers dutifully fact-checked them, but the network showed its bias by not fact-checking Harris. It was obvious throughout that the ABC moderators were either personally motivated or under instruction to hold Trump’s feet to the fire; questioner David Muir did just that, pressing him with follow-ups and seeming at times to be part of a Harris-Muir tag team opposing Trump. Fox News pointed this out, and, for once, they were right.

In the end, Trump maintained his well-earned reputation for being willing to say virtually anything, while Harris cemented her growing reputation as an inveterate flip-flopper. Among America’s corporate media mavens, however, there was no doubt who won; it was Harris by a mile, according to CNN and MSNBC, whose exercise in group wish fulfillment was almost embarrassing.

Was all this much ado about nothing? Maybe so. A week after the debate, polls indicated the race remained essentially tied. History shows that, on balance, debates are politically overrated. In 1984, Mondale outdebated Reagan, then lost; in 2000, Gore outpointed Bush, then lost; in 2004, Kerry bested Bush, then lost; in 2012, Romney trounced Obama, then lost; in 2016, Hillary outperformed Trump (three times), then lost. Even in the granddaddy of them all, Lincoln versus Douglas (for Illinois senator) in 1858, Lincoln is usually judged the winner, but lost the election.

Curb your expectations, Democrats.

Wayne O’Leary is a writer in Orono, Maine, specializing in political economy. He holds a doctorate in American history and is the author of two prizewinning books.

From The Progressive Populist, November 1, 2024

Populist.com