I spoke with a prominent New York Republican a few days ago. You know the type — not an extremist, but someone who would vote for a ham sandwich on the GOP line. He conceded that Harris won the debate, but contended that Trump had the votes.
True, Harris gets a bad rap for failing to elaborate her vision for the next four years, but, as Trump glowered wanly at the camera, she eviscerated him with a thousand brilliant cuts and palpable hits. She called the former president a disgrace, someone who could be manipulated by “flattery and favors.”
Peggy Noonan wrote that Harris was just “more interesting,” than Trump and “interested in what was going on around her.” She presented “herself as a plausible president.”
It is clear that Trump would not do much better in a second debate, which he promptly refused at Harris’s invitation. He comes across like a Borscht Belt comedian whose jokes you already know.
Although the Taylor Swift endorsement of Harris, which went out to her 284 million followers on Instagram, might influence more voters than Harris’s deconstruction of Trump, it must be seen in the light that close to 70 million Americans watched the debate, the most since 2008.
Celebrity endorsements can be decisive with wavering voters. America loves celebrities, especially Swift, our number one celebrity. Celebrities are our King Charles and Princess Kate. Celebrity is what brought Donald Trump to the foreground. As he once memorably put it in a slightly different context, “when you’re a star, they let you do it.”
The election, to my mind, is entirely about character. Forget about the alleged bias of the ABC moderators, the thumb-on-the-scale fact checking or the failure to correct Harris’s venial misstatements. Nothing could erase the overwhelming impression that Harris is a normal reasonable candidate, and that Trump is by any metric so bereft of temperament and competence that he is unfit to lead the nation.
Trump also demonstrated a lack of discipline, consistently rising to Harris’s mesmerizing bait. Instead of stressing (as he did in his closing remarks) why the Biden-Harris administration had not done more to contain inflation and close the border over the past three-and-a-half years, he took refuge in palpable lies about “open border policies” and Haitian immigrants in Ohio eating dogs and cats.
I totally endorse the conclusion reached by the 1974 report of the Senate Watergate Committee that “ultimately, the ethical and moral quality of government depends on the individuals who administer it, especially those who provide its leadership.” That is what this election should be all about.
As to what Trump would do about healthcare, he gave the laughable explanation that he had no plan but “concepts of a plan.” Project 2025 tells us what the plan is, and it’s not good for the Affordable Care Act, which he tried to repeal when he was in the White House.
Foreign policy was hardly touched upon. The ominous hint that Trump gave on his approach to foreign relations was his response to David Muir’s question, “Do you believe it’s in the U.S. best interests for Ukraine to win this war? Yes or no?” Trump dodged the question, answering unresponsively that he would “negotiate a deal.”
Perhaps forgetting that it would be a criminal offense under the Logan Act, which forbids an unauthorized American citizen from negotiating with foreign powers, he said, “If I’m president-elect, I’ll get it done before even becoming president.”
And what would be the deal other than to give in to Putin’s territorial demands? Trump notoriously adores Putin and hates Zelensky for failing to cooperate with him in getting dirt on Joe Biden and his son. So, here’s the deal — give in to Putin and if Zelensky doesn’t agree, cut off all U.S. aid. An imposed peace that would irreparably damage Ukraine, as well as the reliability of the U.S. around the world as an ally.
So how will it all turn out? Nobody knows. It will probably be the closest election that we have seen in American history. We will have to see if the debate gives Harris a significant bump in the polls.
A wave of increased voter registration, a favorable Black vote and what David Brooks called a “cultural shift” in Harris’s favor may carry the day for her. As Brooks put it: “People can be up in arms for only so long. The wearier we grow with American carnage catastrophizing, Trump seems not just monstrous but, worse, stale.” He hailed Harris’s “happy strength” as a “glimpse of the zeitgeist of tomorrow.” And this may well be true. But, even Brooks concedes: “This spirit alone won’t propel her to victory, but it will help.”
The debate dealt such a lethal blow to Trump’s credibility that even if he wins the election, it may be hard implement his weird policies. History has never found want of sycophants to follow the leader. But, if Trump, in office, pardons the violent Jan. 6 insurrectionists, “terminates the Constitution,” deports the immigrants and declares himself dictator for a day, he may find it difficult to govern.
James D. Zirin, author and legal analyst, is a former federal prosecutor in New York’s Southern District. He is also the host of the public television talk show and podcast Conversations with Jim Zirin.