Watch the first presidential debate here.
After introductions from the two moderators, Vice President Kamala Harris moved swiftly across the stage, meeting former President Donald Trump behind his podium. She started and ended strong, opening the evening with her introduction, “Kamala Harris. Let’s have a good debate.”
Harris and Trump met with a mutual smile and a handshake, where the former president responded, “Nice to see you, have fun.”
So was the start of the debate on Sept. 10. Coming after a run of numerous campaign rallies across the country, the debate served a great chance for the Harris campaign. Most Americans aren’t tuning in to her rallies, and the debate served as the nominee’s largest stage since the Democratic National Convention. It was also the first chance for the vice president to meet her opponent face-to-face, just two months before the election.
What we witnessed was far more than two candidates discussing their policy platforms and attempting to garner the support of the American public. It was also a clear distillation of the difference in rhetoric between the Trump and Harris campaigns and a reflection of the tense political polarization in our country.
There were numerous times when Trump appeared strained and incoherent, often quoting and referring to subjects in the third person who were unclear to the viewer. He jumped from subject to subject, going on tangents about separate topics, often in the same sentence.
Some key highlights of his screen time were “[they] execute the baby,” “they’re eating the dogs” and, of course, “she wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison.” These are claims that I cannot attempt to address in one sitting, but they likely speak for themselves.
Trump’s position is built on his notion of a “nation in decline.” He posits America as headed toward failure, that only he and his policies can save us from the clutches of the Biden administration.
Harris, as the nominee of the party to be reelected, took a far more positive stance about the last four years and the term to come. These standpoints are typical for each candidate, one party aiming for reelection and the other attempting to take power back. Harris, distinguishing herself from the Biden administration, discussed her plan for what she calls an “opportunity economy,” a set of policies meant to uplift the middle class. While hopeful of a future under her leadership, she portrayed the Trump years as dangerous and divided. Where she claimed Trump’s politics “beat people down,” she promised to “lift people up.”
The key hurdle that Harris cleared was in taking account of the successes of the Biden administration while politically distancing herself through her policy positions from its failures.
When asked about the inflation many have struggled with over the past four years, she responded with her plan to take the burden off of families with tax incentives and childcare reform. When asked about access to abortion, she made impassioned statements about her support, referring to the restrictions placed by the Trump administration as “unconscionable.” Where she shined especially was in her attacks of former President Trump and his campaign. Most notable was her invitation to the viewers to attend a Trump rally, where she claims people leave early out of “exhaustion and boredom.”
Will this debate drastically change the minds of countless Americans as to one side or the other? Probably not.
What it does do is offer a chance to analyze, right in front of the viewer, an interesting phenomenon within the American political landscape. We witnessed during the debate something common to the last decade of American politics: a complete bifurcation of truth. In many instances, we see the same event or statistic being discussed in wholly incompatible terms. Harris, referring to Trump’s presidency, said, “We don’t have to go back … it’s time to turn the page.”
Not only do we have different views of America’s future, we also seem to have different views of America’s past and present. One thing the two have in common, however, is that they each rely on the notion that if the other candidate wins, the consequences would spell the end of days for our republic. If we are to believe them both, we seem to be in dire circumstances.
Politics doesn’t have to be this way — caught at an impasse where agreement on issues and consensus on truth seem impossible. One thing that makes navigating the political landscape easier is to take a second look at what candidates are saying, regardless of party affiliation. For headlines, Ground News shows partisan bias. For fact checking, PolitiFact assesses the validity of each candidate’s claims, and often supplies further context when needed.
Although I may believe one argued their case better than the other, it is not my job to tell anyone which candidate to prefer. Regardless of who you want in the White House, make sure you’re registered to vote and use your voice this November.
