Kamala Harris proved to be quite teachable, stopped laughing excessively, and managed to provoke Trump a few times
For an hour and a half, during a live broadcast on ABC News on September 10, two ambitious contenders for the White House for the next four years continuously and eagerly accused each other of mortal sins. They tried to wound and outmaneuver their opponent, resorting to clever rhetorical tactics. But even as they descended into indecent personal insults, they tried to «maintain a posture of nobility in their malice».
Judging from comments on social media, some viewers’ impressions of the verbal sparring between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump were mixed. The range of opinions on who ultimately came out on top reflects allegiance to one of the two organized political communities (OPCs), known as Democrats and Republicans.
Each debater sees himself as the victor, deserving of a laurel wreath. In reality, the verbal battle between Harris and Trump was evenly matched. The result: a tie.
This despite the fact that the GOP candidate, who didn’t complete his second term as US president, was in the numerical minority. Two moderators, staff journalists of ABC, which has an openly anti-Trump stance and regularly criticizes him, favored the Democratic Party candidate.
In the end, what remained were the disagreements voiced by Harris and Trump on key issues for both the ruling elite and the general public. These include socio-economic concerns: the rising cost of living despite the slowing «inflationary foxtrot», mortgage and student loan debt, the bankruptcy of several banking and financial institutions, and the fate of the dollar, whose importance depends on its status as the world’s reserve currency.
As Harris solemnly promised, «I intend to create an economy of opportunity by investing in small businesses and new families», Trump countered, «What has prevented the Democratic administration from doing that for the last three and a half years?»
Harris, following the wise advice of her political strategists, avoided focusing on the issue of illegal immigration because she had been appointed to oversee it — and had failed spectacularly. During the Biden-Harris administration, 7 million migrants entered the U.S., often by questionable means.
When Trump loudly declared that leniency toward illegal immigrants had «ruined our country», there was nothing to counter that argument. Especially since Harris had distanced herself from her previous opposition to the idea of building a wall on the southern border to stem the flow of uninvited guests, effectively stealing the Republican slogan.
The crucial part of the heated dialogue concerned NATO and the collective West’s war against Russia in the Ukrainian theater. Refusing to answer directly whether he wanted Ukraine to win against Russia, Trump promised to end the conflict even before being sworn in as the new US president. Claiming that he had the ability to act as an acceptable mediator in negotiations between Kiev and Moscow, Trump revealed his motives: «I want to save the lives of people who are being needlessly killed by the millions».
Observers meticulously counted that Trump mentioned Putin eight times, Russia nine times, and Ukraine six times. In contrast, Harris mentioned Putin’s name four times, Russia twice, and Ukraine five times.
The difference in approach is striking. Not long ago, Trump outlined his views on the ongoing conflict: «As you know, Russia defeated Germany with us and defeated Napoleon… They are a significant military power. Vladimir Putin and I got along very well, we had a good relationship. I will definitely try to help Ukraine, but Europe must also take its share of responsibility».
With such broad strokes, Trump painted a rather chaotic picture, and the meanings he encoded in it are difficult to decipher. In contrast, Harris’ position is crystal clear: «I helped unite more than 50 countries to defend against Putin’s aggression. And as president, I will stand firmly with Ukraine and our NATO allies».
As for the acting skills of the opponents, Harris managed to provoke the excitable macho Trump a few times, which the liberal press hailed as a spectacular success.
The country’s oldest magazine, The Atlantic, expertly summed it up: «Vice President Kamala Harris took the ABC News debate stage with the goal of provoking Trump into a meltdown. She succeeded. Former President Donald Trump also had a mission: to maintain self-control. He failed. Time and again, Trump lost his cool and fell for predictable provocations».
The assessment of the success of the «replacement for the old man on batteries» is clearly exaggerated. «Harris tried to be more aggressive with Trump», notes political analyst Malek Dudakov, «but she was clearly nervous and overacted. Her facial expressions also looked strange every time Trump responded to her».
At the same time, Harris, who was prepared for the broadcast by professional image consultants, had two memorable lines from her speechwriters. The first was the phrase «Donald Trump was fired by 81 million people», presumably referring to Democratic Party supporters who voted against the eccentric billionaire in the 2020 election. How many of them are «dead souls» resting in cemeteries, however, remains unknown.
And here’s the second prepared line for Harris: Trump, she claimed, «talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter» as if they actually exist in the real world. Hannibal Lecter, a vivid literary and cinematic character, was created by author Thomas Harris, who made him the offspring of a Lithuanian count and an Italian aristocrat, but most importantly portrayed him as a sinister serial killer and cannibal.
Using fictional characters with negative connotations is a tried and true tactic for demonizing an opponent. On a subconscious level, the audience involuntarily associates the person with a classic villain, leading to an automatic connection: Trump is Hannibal Lecter, or rather… a cannibal.
Prone to labeling his opponents, Trump this time branded Harris by pointing out that her father is a «Marxist economics professor» (apparently a serious accusation in today’s America) and that if she wins, the U.S. will turn into «Venezuela on steroids».
After the televised debates held in Philadelphia, the capital of the swing state of Pennsylvania, the Democrats were reinvigorated. The series of sharp blows delivered to her opponent by a now composed and focused Harris, no longer laughing uncontrollably, was seen as proof that the strong-willed woman is teachable and can be trained.
Since Harris’s popularity dropped after the Chicago convention, and the gap with Trump is now just one percent, not in her favor, the debates will be repeated. It is unlikely, however, that the platform will be the culturally conservative Fox News, whose audience can hardly tolerate the neoliberal crowd with its racial and gender agenda. The two Americas simply cannot find common ground.