 |
| Kamala Harris |
First, just as the event started, she walked over to Trump’s podium to shake his hand and wish him a good debate. Trump is, of course, notoriously phobic of handshaking. By reaching forward, Harris approached Trump in his own space and established some control over the setting. By politely greeting him (“Kamala Harris. Let’s have a good debate”), Harris exhibited a collegial character. That simple greeting started the agenda. The handshake symbolized that she would take charge of the evening’s discussion.
Second, she took a positive tone when she answered the moderators’ predictable but tricky first question. David Muir, one of the hosts, asked Harris:
“When it comes to the economy, do you believe Americans are better off than they were four years ago?”That question invited a negative response. The question invited Harris to critique the economic record that Trump created during his presidential term and, by way of contrast, defend the current administration’s economic accomplishments. No matter how she phrased it, a direct response would place her and Trump both on the defense. Avoiding that, Harris took a different tack. Pretty much ignoring the question, Harris chose to establish her credibility by stating a vague but presumably inspiring economic policy:
“So, I was raised as a middle-class kid. And I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America.”Continuing, Harris talked about the:
“Ambition, the aspirations, the dreams of the American people.”She acknowledged a few current economic problems, commenting on housing costs. She advocated a start-up plan for small businesses, which she called “part of the backbone of America’s economy.”
Only then – after establishing her own perspective – and not a moment earlier – Harris criticized Trump’s economic ideas:
“My opponent, on the other hand, his plan is to do what he has done before, which is to provide a tax cut for billionaires and big corporations, which will result in $5 trillion to America’s deficit.”Concluding her opening, Harris then (unfortunately) offered a confused interpretation of Trump’s tariff plan.
Third, during her rebuttal speech a few minutes later, Harris did – eventually – favorably compare the current economy with Trump’s. That was organizationally clever. Having earlier ignored the moderator’s question, Harris now answered it, but only in rebuttal. That way, no one could accuse her of ignoring the question, even though she had done exactly that. It was a matter of emphasis. Her first statement offered a positive philosophy, and only later did she contrast the current economy against Trump’s legacy:
“Let’s talk about what Donald Trump left us. Donald Trump left us the worst unemployment since the Great Depression. Donald Trump left us the worst public health epidemic in a century. Donald Trump left us the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War.”
Note Harris’ tripartite use of Trump’s name: “Donald Trump left us… Donald Trump left us… Donald Trump left us….” That put the onus for economic troubles squarely on Trump. Audiences respond well to anything stated in a pattern of three! Even so, she sidestepped the moderator’s attempt to get her to talk about President Joe Biden’s economic policies. After all, Biden was not debating that night. By comparing one president’s accomplishments or failures with the other, she would have invited a back-and-forth hassle about statistics and perceptions. She might have proved her points, but she would have lost the agenda. Entirely avoiding such a discussion, she wisely avoided going on the defense.
Since Trump is known for his divisive style, Harris concluded her rebuttal by calling for unity:“I believe very strongly that the American people want a president who understands the importance of bringing us together knowing we have so much more in common than what separates us. And I pledge to you to be a president for all Americans.”
Thus, by taking control of the debate’s ground, Harris focused the audience’s attention on her own perspective: not Trump’s perspective, and not the moderators’ perspective.
Earlier Post: William McKinley versus Donald Trump: Does Mr. Trump Really Need to Be So Nasty?
Fourth, as the press gleefully noted, Harris dug at some of Trump’s pet peeves. For example, she needlessly criticized Trump’s famous mass rallies:
Overall, Harris’ stated vague, poorly articulated policy positions. For that matter, so did Trump. That’s not my point. It’s been a long, long time since American voters have heard a solidly argued presidential debate. What matters most, for the moment, is that Harris seized the agenda, asking the voters to view politics as a positive opportunity. Her agenda distinguished between her values and Trump’s. That is not enough to win the election, but it’s a good start.
Now, Trump is famous for controlling the public agenda. In this debate, he failed. He failed miserably. He utterly embarrassed himself. But, as I’ll explain in an upcoming post, he soon retook the agenda by marching onward with his most outrageous and factually challenged arguments. Indeed, it took him only a few days to spin the presidential campaign back into a swirling cloud of ether. Check this blog again in a day or two for details.
Fourth, as the press gleefully noted, Harris dug at some of Trump’s pet peeves. For example, she needlessly criticized Trump’s famous mass rallies:
“I’m going to invite you to attend one of Donald Trump’s rallies because it’s a really interesting thing to watch. You will see during the course of his rallies he talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter. He will talk about windmills cause cancer. And what you will also notice is that people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom.”Defensively, Trump responded by boasting:
“People don’t leave my rallies. We have the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics. That’s because people want to take their country back. Our country is being lost. We’re a failing nation.”After defending his rallies (a defensive move!), Trump bitterly narrated the discredited Internet rumor that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio are kidnapping and cooking people’s pets:
“The people that came in. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating -- they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”And, thus, Harris scooted Trump into ignoring the moderator’s question in favor of his personal grievances. She gave Trump a chance to say ridiculous things, distracting him from the moderators’ questions, and he unwisely took full advantage. The real point, however, is that she distracted Trump from the issues – which, in turn, helped her to control the agenda.
Overall, Harris’ stated vague, poorly articulated policy positions. For that matter, so did Trump. That’s not my point. It’s been a long, long time since American voters have heard a solidly argued presidential debate. What matters most, for the moment, is that Harris seized the agenda, asking the voters to view politics as a positive opportunity. Her agenda distinguished between her values and Trump’s. That is not enough to win the election, but it’s a good start.
Now, Trump is famous for controlling the public agenda. In this debate, he failed. He failed miserably. He utterly embarrassed himself. But, as I’ll explain in an upcoming post, he soon retook the agenda by marching onward with his most outrageous and factually challenged arguments. Indeed, it took him only a few days to spin the presidential campaign back into a swirling cloud of ether. Check this blog again in a day or two for details.
by William D. Harpine
__________________
Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine
Image: Official White House photo, public domain
No comments:
Post a Comment