I had this thought the other day, which was absolutely delicious. Then I had the next thought. Which wasn't. Wonder if you have, too.
Kamala Harris now has the Democratic presidential nomination sewed up, days after Joe Biden got out of the race pretty much the way he got us out of Afghanistan--Okay, we're done here. The Democrats also pulled off a refreshingly united, seamless convention in codifying the unification of their efforts.
If you're like me, you're looking forward to having her take on ex- in a debate, which is happening on Sept. 10. Kind of licking our chops, actually.
I can think of a bunch of reasons, too: Because Harris chooses to use the brain her parents gave her; because she's not nearly as likely to freeze up when ex- says something incredibly untrue or incredibly stupid; and because she'll put the best foot forward when explaining the successes of the Biden Administration, which the president so strangely failed to do in the last, disastrous debate.
The mistake you might be making--and I can't blame you for doing so--would be to put a great deal of weight on the results: First, because regardless of the lies that ex- will be mouthing, people continue to believe them as well as reject any factual information that Harris will put forward; second, he's at his best when deeply, ridiculously insulting someone; and third, you have to admit that he's getting pretty good at upfront non-answers, avoiding any responsibility when he can possibly do so.
The momentum has shifted, though. A surge seems on. The Democratic deep dive in the polls has stopped, and Harris has regained some of the losses Biden absorbed. All that does is assure that the election will be a photo finish at best, and once again, a few thousand votes in a few states will decide whether we go on in some degree of gridlock, forcing compromise, or descend to mindless, devastating, undemocratic authoritarianism.
Ex- can read, so he knows that debates, which he figured to avoid, must be taken on. Harris might do well. She might stumble. Ex- will try to undo her, to frazzle her, to discombobulate her. I doubt that he will succeed, but the total effect he leaves has to be to diminish her in some way, to get the public to conclude that having the first woman president will make the country weaker. But the total effect will be unknown until they finish and wags like me prattle on.
The election seems hers to lose now, though, and her demeanor seems very fit to face down this awful person. She must come through. One of the results of the debacle of the earlier debate was that Biden's performance was so disturbing that it distracted from how awful ex- actually was himself. He has feasted on withdrawal from reality, counting on enough of the country to bask in it so he needn't face any of it; recall how often he spoke facing the floor. It is he who is dangerous, not Harris. If Harris can show that, she may run away with the whole deal. At bottom, she must avoid appearances of intimidation.
I can't help but remember, though, during my first few days in Texas in 2014, the gubernatorial debate between Greg Abbott and Wendy Davis, which stands as a template to consider the effectiveness of any debate between any two people. Abbott was riding a huge lead, and Davis was hoping to cut into it. By any stretch of logical deduction, she buried him with facts and fresh approaches to problems that had been plaguing Texans for decades. Much of what he did was shrug and go aw-shucks, diverting and ducking any problems that Republicans had been responsible for.
Anyone with a brain walked away from that display with nothing but respect for Davis' strong delivery on things like women's rights and tax fairness: Not only what she did but the way she did it. I couldn't help but think that, with this show of competence against Abbott's show of wishy-washy blather and constant inclination toward avoidance, she had to start cutting into his lead.
Didn't work. Not even close. I looked it up again. She lost by 21 points. Didn't even get to 40 percent. Abbott, as we so sadly know, went on to do things like send thousands of undocumented immigrants to so-called "sanctuary cities," to show everyone what a challenge dealing with such people can be. He signed a bill, too, limiting Texas abortion rights to a minuscule, nearly impossible, token degree.
So there is no assurance that, when ex- takes on Harris, the results will make any sense at all. (Look at the last unexpected result.) But you never know. That was ten years ago, and Texas is Texas. You would like to think, though, that Harris will leave folks with a better impression than President Biden did.
Ex- also keeps giving Harris plenty of new ammunition, what with his ridiculous, strange, and totally false assumption that the Black part of Harris' race has somehow been kept in hiding until recently. That message, says more than one commentator, is for sharpening the support of his pliant MAGA backers, who believe and accept anything that comes out of his pathetic mouth.
The debate would, in the end, be significant for those last five percent who are still unsure of what to do. (I find that remarkable, but maybe they're smarter than the rest of us.) As usual, they will decide the election, either by throwing up their hands, holding their noses and choosing at the last minute, or by staying home and letting someone else do it for them--definitely the wrong move. That not nearly enough of us spend not nearly enough time reading and talking about this devastatingly big choice--which takes, in its essence, so little time but means so much for so long--is enough of an abrogation of political responsibilities for the maintenance of our republic. The tokenism of it all is sometimes awful to consider.
But here we are. Again. In about 73 days now, a good and worn down man will be replaced by either someone who wants to take democracy somewhere new, or a bad and worn down man who wants to take democracy, flush it down the toilet (along with some important government papers, but I digress) and replace it with Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation's blueprint for illiberalism. Maybe debates will allow that to emerge as a realization. It could actually save us from ourselves for another four years.
Let us hope. Here we go.
Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment