The First Biden-Trump Debate: Power, or Nurturance?

Donald Trump

During the first Joe Biden – Donald Trump presidential debate of 2024, Trump said that Biden was weak:

“He opened the borders nobody’s ever seen anything like.”

Later, Trump, who was nearing 78 years of age, volunteered that:

“I think I’m a very good shape. I feel that I’m in as good a shape as I was 25, 30 years ago.”

That is, Trump promised to be strong, while he said Biden was weak.

In contrast, Biden promised to be compassionate and caring:

“I’m going to make sure we have childcare. We’re going to significantly increase the credit people have for childcare. I’m going to make sure we do something about what we’re doing on lead pipes and all the things that are causing health problems for people across the country.”

Joe Biden

As never before, this 2024 debate displayed the two candidates’ moral character. Their words displayed their goals. Political debates are not about facts: political debates are about values. Linguist George Lakoff says that conservatives and liberals prefer distinct kinds of leaders. Conservatives seek what Lakoff calls a “strong father.” Liberals, however, want a “nurturing mother.” The June 27, 2024 debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden offered voters that exact choice. Trump told more lies than a carnival barker (no offense to barkers!), while Biden tried to show that he cared about Americans. That was the debate’s essence.


Trump, the Strong President?

For example, talking about the border policy, Trump highlighted his strength versus Biden’s weakness:

“And he didn’t need legislation because I didn’t have legislation. I said, close the border. We had the safest border in history. In that final couple of months of my presidency, we had, according to Border Patrol – who is great, and, by the way, who endorsed me for president. But I won’t say that. But they endorsed me for president.

“Brandon, just speak to him.

“But, look, we had the safest border in history. Now we have the worst border in history. There’s never been anything like it. And people are dying all over the place, including the people that are coming up in caravans.” [Italics added]

The name “Brandon” has, for inexplicable reasons, become conservatives’ insulting nickname for Joe Biden. Insult aside, Trump’s historical comment was false. My grandparents simply got off the boat in 1906 and made their case at Ellis Island. Indeed, for most of the 19th Century, the United States had no controls restricting white immigrants, and immigration controls were minimal in the early 20th Century – but facts are never Trump’s selling point. His selling point was strength. Trump sought to contrast his strength versus Biden’s purported weakness.

Nor did Trump offer details. Did he really close the border? I live near the border. I saw nothing of the kind. Is the border wide open today? Again, no. A fact check on NBC News noted that the Trump administration oversaw a massive influx of undocumented immigrants:

“In 2019, the last year before the Covid-19 pandemic brought down border crossings, there were roughly 860,000 illegal border crossings, far more than in any year during the Obama administration.”

Unfortunately, Trump never intended to give facts. Fear erases facts. Trump’s approach was simple and stark: fear (fear of immigrants) – protection (“close the border”) – more fear (“worst border in history”) – well, you get the point. Trump wanted us to think that he was a strong leader who protected the United States from hordes of immigrants. Biden, Trump said, opened the border to immigrant caravans, while Trump will close it again. It made no difference whether the things Trump said were real. He wasn’t talking about reality. He was talking about fear, strength, and protection.


Biden, the Nurturing President?

While Trump promised to protect the United States against fearsome hordes of immigrants, Biden boasted of positive internal improvements. These improvements did not necessarily protect people against external dangers, real or imaginary, but instead sought to improve the nation’s domestic policies. Biden talked about healthcare:

“We made sure that they [minority communities] have health insurance. We have covered with – the ACA has increased. I made sure that they’re $8,000 per person in the family to get written off in health care, but this guy wants to eliminate that. They tried 50 times. He wants to get rid of the ACA again, and they’re going to try again if they win.”

The threat against which Biden warned was not an external invasion, but rather that Trump would roll back healthcare benefits:

So, Biden gave the television audience a choice: elect the nurturing president who protected healthcare access, or the dangerous president who would callously roll healthcare back to the dark ages. Presenting another nurturing benefit, Biden discussed progress in jobs and hiring: 

“We provided thousands of millions of jobs for individuals who were involved in communities, including minority communities.”

Biden took extra credit when he said “we provided,” for the president himself did not provide “thousands of millions of jobs” to anyone. The fairer point would be that job opportunities improved under his leadership. Biden remarked that his policies protected minority communities, who are among the most vulnerable members of our society. I don’t know whether “thousands of millions” was hyperbole, or simply a bizarre math error. (“Thousands of millions” calculates to more people than inhabit the entire surface of the earth, and no American president has ever been that nurturing!)

 

Foreign Policy

The strong father versus nurturing mother metaphors broke out in an interesting way when the two candidates examined foreign policy. Biden emphasized that the United States’ security depends on our foreign alliances, especially from the protection that we receive from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Biden promoted strength through unity: 

“This is a guy who wants to get out of NATO. You’re going to stay in NATO or you’re going to pull out of NATO?

“The idea that we have – our strength lies in our alliances as well. It may be a big ocean, but we’re – (inaudible) able to avoid a war in Europe, a major war in Europe. What happens if, in fact, you have Putin continue to go into NATO? We have an Article Five agreement, attack on one is attack on all. You want to start the nuclear war he keeps talking about, go ahead, let Putin go in and control Ukraine and then move on to Poland and other places. See what happens then.

“He has no idea what the hell he’s talking about.” [italics added]

That is, does United States expect a single strong leader to protect our foreign policy? Or, like Biden, do we see strength in unity?

Trump took a quite different view about the United States’ foreign alliances. He boasted that he asserted strength even over our allies. He explained that he forced NATO members to increase their financial contributions, else he would refuse to support them against Russia:

“But the big thing I changed is they don’t want to pay. And the only reason that he can play games with NATO is because I got them to put up hundreds of billions of dollars. I said – and he’s right about this, I said, no, I’m not going to support NATO if you don’t pay. They asked me that question: Would you guard us against Russia? – at a very secret meeting of the 28 states at that time, nations at that time. And they (sic) said, no, if you don’t pay, I won’t do that. And you know what happened? Billions and billions of dollars came flowing in the next day and the next months.” [italics added]

Trump was laying out an uninformed fantasy (NATO countries do not pay us to protect them) although he did, indeed, get the NATO countries to increase investment in their own defense. Unfortunately, no one in the media or during the debate noted Trump’s inaccuracy. In any case, Trump didn’t care about accuracy. His goal was to show strength. Trump’s message was that he strong-armed our North Atlantic allies. Trump did not tell us that he was an expert: he told us that he was strong. He got things done. He, the strong father, wrestled our allies to the floor. Compared with that strength and power, the fact that Trump knew less about NATO than a well-versed high school student paled into insignificance.

Conclusion

I could go on, and at times the debate got so muddled it was hard to say what positions the two candidates advocated. The key point is that a conservative politician advances by convincing the voters that he or she will be a strong leader who protects them from threats. In contrast, a liberal politician tries to show that he or she will help people reach into their resources and improve their lives. A quick listen to video of the debate confirms the message: Trump was loud and forceful. Biden spoke quietly and often degenerated into details and picky facts of the sort that make voters’ brains glaze over. At times, Biden was so quiet that one could barely hear him. Maybe that carried the nurturing mother metaphor too far: Democrats might want to be nurtured, but they don’t want to be lullabied. 

When pundits complained that Trump lied constantly during the debate, they were right, but they missed the point. Trump’s core supporters don’t want facts. They want a strong leader to protect them. When pundits complained that Biden dwelled too much on data, well, they also missed the point. Social change requires attention to detail: no details, no policy! 

Overall, although this was a terrible debate on both sides, it did offer the American people a choice: pick a strong, forceful leader, or a leader who cares about them and wants to improve their lives. Judging from the polls, public opinion splits about equally between the two candidates, and that split arises precisely from Lakoff’s distinction. The American people might not face the best choice, but they have a clear one. They will not choose according to issues. The choice comes down to values: strength versus compassion.

Earlier Post:

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Both Suffered from Talking Points Disease When They Discussed Abortion in their Third 2016 Debate

Earlier post about this debate: 

Biden versus Trump, the June 27, 2024 Presidential Debate, a Study in Character

______________


P.S. The press has made much out of Biden’s ineffectual vocal delivery during this debate. Does that signify cognitive decline? Maybe (his appearance was disturbing), but I don’t necessarily see it. When I read the debate’s transcript, Biden made at least as much sense as Trump – maybe more. That’s not a high standard, but that is the choice the public faces. Biden delivered facts, many of which were true. He stated various specifics and punched out several childish but pointed barbs. I don’t see how a cognitively distressed man could have done that. Although I would still like to know more about Biden’s health, anyone who is concerned about Biden’s thinking ability on June 27 should put aside the video and read the debate transcript.

Preliminary polling suggest that Trump made a far more favorable impression during the debate than did Biden. Still, preliminary polls mean almost nothing (voters are nothing if not fickle), so let us not rush to judgment. 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright ©  2024, William D.  Harpine

Images of Joe Biden and Donald Trump, official White House photos

Biden Versus Trump, the June 27, 2024 Presidential Debate, a Study in Character

Joe Biden

Did Joe Biden or Donald Trump win the June 27, 2024 presidential debate? That depends on how we define the question. Biden did better on the issues, while Trump projected more strength and confidence. In terms of character, Trump seemed strong but spoke dishonestly, while Biden was more accurate but seemed weaker. The voters now have a tricky choice. Let’s look at a couple snapshots of the debaters’ performance.

Snapshot #1: Former President Donald Trump said:

“[Biden] allowed millions of people to come in here from prisons, jails and mental institutions.”

That was totally false, and the fact-checking website PolitiFact.com wisely awarded Trump its dreaded “Pants on Fire” rating. The number of criminals involved ranks in the thousands at the most; many of them were promptly caught, and only a fraction of them crossed the southern border to get to the United States. (There are many other ways to get here.) Whether Trump was lying or engaging in hyperbole, he

Donald Trump

simply spoke irresponsibly.

Snapshot #2: Asked about abortion, Biden, rambling aimlessly, said:

“I supported Roe v. Wade, which had three trimesters. First time is between a woman and a doctor. Second time is between the doctor and an extreme situation. And a third time is between the doctor – I mean, it’d be between the woman and the state.

“The idea that the politicians – that the founders wanted the politicians to be the ones making decisions about women’s health is ridiculous. That’s the last – no politician should be making that decision.”

Furthermore, video shows that while Biden struggled to corral his drifting thoughts, he looked away from the camera, mumbled so that he could barely be heard, and seemed to drift away for a moment or two.

Two Ways to Judge the Debate?

So, back to our question: who won last night’s debate? Like most debate specialists, I mostly think about issues and proof. Like the philosophy student that I was, I say that it all depends on how you define terms. Biden clearly won on the issues. No contest. But who won the character test? That is trickier. 

Almost everything Trump said was untrue if not incoherent. Trump claimed that he had presided over an excellent economy and that Biden wants to abort children after they’ve been born. Both points are false, and there is obviously no such thing as post-birth abortion. In contrast, Biden often spoke truthfully. Does any of that matter? For Biden looked weak and sounded hoarse. That leads to the real point of presidential debating! To “win” a presidential debate means only one thing: to win the election. The American voters make the final judgment. There is no other judge. Cable news pundits do not judge the debate. I do not judge the debate. Only the voters judge the debate.


How Do the Voters Choose?

Yes, Biden won the issues, but voters are not choosing issues. We voters are choosing a leader. When voters ignore the issues (as they usually do), they’re not necessarily making a mistake. The issues can be surprisingly irrelevant. When George W. Bush and Al Gore debated during the 2000 campaign, the key issue was Social Security. However, the unexpected key issue of Bush’s presidency was international terrorism, which the debates barely mentioned. When we chose between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016, no one expected the coronavirus to become issue number one. When we choose a president, we want somebody who can handle whatever unexpected nightmares the world throws at us. The debates are not issue tests. They are character tests. We are not choosing an issue. We are choosing a leader.

Unfortunately, Trump and Biden both failed the leadership test. Trump told endless lies. Biden responded, correctly, that Trump was spewing “malarkey.” Unfortunately, Biden often paused, not for effect, but out of seeming confusion. He failed to make eye contact with the camera, lost his train of thought, and spoke in a scratchy voice. It was more than his usual harmless stuttering. He looked weak. He sounded weak. He rambled. He neither looked nor sounded like someone who could lead the world through its next crisis.

Abraham Lincoln, "Honest Abe"

What about the lying? Fact checking is wonderful if people take it seriously. During last night’s debate, Biden certainly did better with the fact checkers. On PolitiFact.com, Trump received 1 “Pants on Fire” rating, 3 ratings of “Mostly False,” and 12 ratings of “False.” Trump received not a single rating of “True,” “Mostly True,” or “Half True.” Biden’s statements received 1 rating of “True,” 3 ratings of “Mostly True,” 3 of “Half True,” 1 of “Mostly False,” and 2 of “False.” Factcheck.org gave a similar analysis. Although neither man demonstrated the level of matchless accuracy that I would like to associate with the American presidency, Trump’s unrelenting dishonesty pricks the conscience. (Yes, I wish we had a better choice than these two: a compulsive liar versus an occasional liar? What would Abraham Lincoln say?)

This leaves the voters with a terrible choice. Do we want to turn the leadership of the free world and the nuclear codes over to a relentless liar who cannot be trusted to fulfill the simplest responsibilities? Or, instead, do we want to choose a man who is so feeble that he might collapse in a tense situation? If we are honest with ourselves, we will never find a satisfactory answer to those questions. There is no satisfactory answer.


The Debate Leaves Us Swirling in Uncertainty

While we seek answers, however, we need to remember that the debate is merely one snapshot. Biden has given many sharp, alert speeches. For example, in his 2023 State of the Union Address, Biden effortlessly out-argued Republican hecklers on the spot.

Heckling and Anti-Heckling in Joe Biden’s February 7, 2023 State of the Union Address: The Republicans Fooled Only Themselves

There is no objective way to judge a debate, which involves influencing perceptions as much as it entails logic. It is often said that Richard Nixon lost the 1960 presidential debate because he looked pale and ungroomed on television, and that people who heard the debate on radio thought he was equal to Kennedy. Similarly, I got a much more favorable impression of Biden when I read the transcript of the debate that I did when listening to him. The fact remains that a debater must project confidence. (I once lost a college debate because I looked flustered – the judge’s word was “shaken” – while giving the right answers. It can happen to anyone.)

Overall, last night raised questions about both candidates. Why did Biden look and sound weak last night? Is he falling to dementia, as Republicans want us to believe? Or was he just knocked down by a respiratory illness? Did the White House physician give him too much cold medicine? Did an allergy attack keep him up at night? The public needs to know whether Biden’s problems are temporary or enduring. In contrast, Trump lied, not occasionally, but constantly. He has a long history of lying. He will be a liar forever. He will tell lies on his deathbed. His tombstone will probably be inscribed with lies.

Trump's Speech of January 6, 2021: A "Firehose of Falsehood"

I end by counseling the voting public: kindly view this debate as a snapshot, not as a final image. The public already knows what it needs to know about Trump. Trump is utterly dishonest, and his supporters have made their peace about that. For that matter, so have the media pundits, who have long quit caring about Trump’s unrelenting deceptions. But what about Biden? We need to know more about Biden. Until we do, our key question – who won the debate? – remains shrouded in the mist.

by William D. Harpine

____________

P.S. Biden’s public schedule was essentially empty for several days before the debate. Did he use that time to practice? Or did his advisors give him a chance to recover from a secret illness? If it was the latter, they made a poor choice. It would be far better to call in sick and postpone the debate than to show up dysfunctional. But who knows? Nobody in the White House is talking.

Research Note: Did Nixon make a better impression on radio listeners than on television listeners in the 1960 debate? Theodore White seemed to make that point. It's entirely unclear that this is true. Before the television era, the Lincoln-Douglas debates mostly reached the public via newspaper transcripts. 

Copyright ©  2024, William D.  Harpine

Photos of Joe Biden and Donald Trump, official White House photos, via Wikimedia Commons

Photo of Abraham Lincoln, 1863, Moses Parker Rice, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons