At Long Last: Reactions From the Presidential Debate

Kamala Harris destroyed Donald Trump on a national stage. It was cathartic and impressive, but still concerning

Dispatches From A Collapsing State is an independent venture and depends on your support. To keep this project going and growing, and to gain access to subscriber-only content, including videos, podcasts, and videos, subscribe today.

---

She beat the living shit out of him.

Maybe that’s not the most professional start to debate analysis, but it doesn’t make it any less true. Over the course of their presidential debate on ABC, Kamala Harris absolutely dominated Donald Trump like he has never been dominated before. It made for thrilling, if not depressing, television. From the very first segment, in which Harris masterfully baited Trump into letting loose a torrent of nonsense, to the final statement, where a sweaty and beleaguered Trump was grasping so much for straws he couldn’t articulate anything approaching an appeal, it was an absolute rout.

In the lead up to the debate I had attended a handful of strategy calls and discussions, and the plan was painstakingly communicated. Harris was going to take a new course that both underscored the dangers of Trump while provoking him into being his worst self. Strategy is what it is. You can plan whatever you want, but when you get into the heat of battle or one of the more stressful situations imaginable, everything goes out the window. You get flustered, tired, or nervous, and plans have a tendency to change. But it worked. Boy, oh boy, did it work.

And why? Credit where credit is due. Harris is an extremely talented debater. In preparing for the debate I watched every available piece of footage and found that some of her best performances come on the debate stage. You can chalk it up to her past as a prosecutor, but even that doesn’t paint the full picture. Some people shine on the debate stage and others wilt. So, there is that. But it also can’t undersold how untalented Trump is. Undisciplined, sure, but certainly untalented.

Trump’s ascendance in American politics is a symptom of something much larger than himself. There’s been an air of mystery to it, at least for some, because it has yielded results. In 2016 his dominance of the GOP meant analysts and pundits had to pretend, for the benefit of their own worldviews, that there must be something to Trump. That was incorrect. There is a certain shockjock appeal in that people are waiting to hear what he’ll say next, but it was his shamelessness that won the day. He was surrounded by Republican stiffs who had come to prominence in an era where conservatives just retread the same talking points in order to push tax cuts while appealing to white supremacist paranoia. Trump’s insults and braggadocio style obliterated them. It was necessary to lend it something other than the obvious diagnosis: his appeal came from the decline of America.

Hillary Clinton had no idea how to debate Trump. I watched these debates again, for maybe the fourth time, and it was an extension of the GOP contests. Clinton seemed, at all times, completely caught off-guard that her opponent could trample norms and utter such awful things. She tried like hell to stick to her own talking points and, in moments where he shocked her, she did her best to ignore it and get back to her work. Again, it highlighted the massive contrasts between emerging Trumpism and the old guard.

What Harris accomplished last night was difficult. Almost every answer was formulated to do three things simultaneously: insult Trump so he would be trigged, highlight the dangers he represents, and then return to her message. With a few exceptions, this held true all night, leaving Trump to rant about immigrants eating dogs and cats and relying on non sequitur personal attacks. Harris had practiced a measured physical reaction, her face communicating a bemused disgust that told the audience everything. That performance alone, the physical one, will likely be studied in future debate prep like the lessons learned from the JFK/Nixon debate in 1960.

The fallout has been swift. Trump stalked into the spin room, which is…not a great sign. Fox News even agreed that it had been a disaster despite Trump joining Hannity and whining about the debate setup. This morning, he is calling for ABC to lose their broadcast license, an unhinged call his cultists are echoing.

Of course, this was only a debate. It was highly viewed and will probably change the discourse of coverage moving forward. That’s largely the point of these things. It gives our media its talking points. And, we have to acknowledge, tens of millions of people are not only supporting Trump but have tied their entire identities to Trumpism writ large.

When giving analysis, we talk about the performance. Like watching a football game and dissecting the plays that led to the outcome. Policy, for the most part, is an afterthought and, in this arena, can be detrimental. For what it’s worth, Harris was able to both goad Trump and communicate some policy effectively. The delivery is what matters in these things, but I would be remiss if I didn’t talk about what was being communicated.

We are not good in this country with context or nuance. The two party duopoly has given us a mentality that holds us back. On top of liberals celebrating Dick Cheney’s endorsement - which Harris brought up last night and turned my stomach - it’s unfortunately a common occurrence for anything that “helps” a campaign to be greeted with adulation. Before Trump called Harris a Marxist, which was as befuddling a moment as there can be, Harris boasted that her “Opportunity Economy” had received endorsements from Goldman Sachs and prize-winning economists.

Cool.

As a leftist who has spent years in the wilderness after watching the Democrats embrace the “Too Big To Fail” insanity following the 2008 Financial Crisis, this reliance on traditional indicators has driven me to the brink of madness. When Joe Biden and his supporters insisted the economy was “great” and dismissed anyone’s complaints, it turned my stomach. These indicators, whether it’s Goldman Sachs and other oligarchical institutions giving Harris the check of approval or this exhausting pushing that our economy is an indicator of health versus a measuring of exploitation, are incredibly misleading and actually alarm bells for a larger problem.

Since Harris accepted the nomination at the Democratic National Convention, the appeals have grown not just more moderate but more conservative overall. Hearing about needing “the most lethal fighting force in history,” mixed with neoconservative-light rhetoric about American destiny, should make us all pause and wonder where all this is going. And even as the proposed “Opportunity Economy” has details that sound promising, we are still being treated to some status quo ideas.

In a better country, Harris would have been challenged on these things. And that challenging, should the process work, would pressure her to change and tend them toward more progressive and expansive plans. But that’s not where we are. We have a shouting madman who sounds more like a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist threatening you on the street than an actual candidate. And, so, whatever is said, no matter what it actually entails, begins to sound a whole lot better.

Trump was exposed last night. The hope is that it did enough damage to further the decline of his campaign and appeal. My guess is that happened a little, but his cultish hold over his followers, mixed with the increasing authoritarian and oligarchical push in this country, probably ensures it won’t be enough to thaw this mess. But, for all intents and purposes, it was a major even that left him diminished.

Harris deserved better competition. In sports terms, she is a prize-fighting. Her talent on the debate stage is top-notch, and anyone who has improved in any field or pursuit knows there is very little to be gained from dispatching inferior competition. It builds confidence, for sure, but it doesn’t necessarily make the victor better. Like everything in this horrid climate, we won last night but we also all lost. It was a spectacle, a headshakingly disgusting one, and the sooner we move into an era of substantive debate discussing what we need to do to fix the mess of the neoliberal status quo, decades of intentional inequality, and the looming threat of climate change - which was afforded a few minutes of scrambled non-conversation - the better.

But for now. It was what it was. A complete and utter rout that anyone willing to look would have recognized.