By Partha Chakraborty-
Today marks two days before the Prize Fight, and you could cut the anticipation on both sides with a knife. On your right, we have a big hulking bear, a former heavyweight champ, is known to flail around and meander, especially if gasping for breath. On your left is the contender who has never been to a big game like this before, but is known for a sharp uppercut that forced others on the mat. The two have not met before, but tens of millions are going to be glued to their idiot boxes, and all other screens; stakes could not be higher for both.
I am not talking about the Alvarez v. Benavidez big fight, still three weeks away. I am talking about something far more consequential — the US Presidential Debate on Sep 10 in Philadelphia, the only one currently scheduled for the two candidates.
In preparation, Harris is reported to have gone into “full Lee Strasberg method-acting mode”, with an adviser “not just playing Donald J. Trump but inhabiting him, wearing a boxy suit and a long tie”. Trump’s preparation sessions have nobody playing Ms. Harris, as off-the-cuff as Trump is wont to do, “are pointedly called not ‘debate prep’ but ‘policy time’, meant to refresh him on his record”. One thing common between the two is the realization that this debate could be as game-changing as the previous debate between Trump and Biden was. It is also understood that in that event Trump came out ahead only because Biden’s horrendous show laid bare the lie that he still had it in him to be leader of the free world for four more years.
Going into the debate, I cannot help but notice how similar the two candidates are, really!
Both are “Movement Candidates”. As I have noted repeatedly on these pages, Donald Trump became a frontman for the anguish of a ‘silent majority’ who were brooding against cultural elites. Despite what mainstream media says, these are not boorish misogynistic anti-immigrant racist antisemitic bigot deplorables — strains of each do exist on either side of the aisle — but “normie” folks who (mostly) work with their hands, take care of family, participate in their community and churches /synagogues /temples /mosques. On the flip side, Kamala Harris claims a natural focal point for women who are suddenly bereft of reproductive freedom, especially in states where ‘pro-life’ zealots have been too quick to extend turf-war. Moreover, the US never has a woman President, and only one person of color ever behind the Resolute Desk, there is a palpable excitement at the possibility of crossing the Rubicon of aspirations as a nation.
Both candidates are beholden to 2020. Trump cannot stop talking about the ‘injustice’ done to him in the 2020 elections, an election that he still claims to have won, promises revenge on individuals, many of them lifelong Republicans, who question that. He lives in a soapbox where fealty to him starts with a swearing of oath to Trump the 46th President that never was. Harris will not be here were it not for Biden to pick her as his vice-presidential nominee, by herself she has not won a single primary — or any election outside of her home state of California. Not only that, she needs the Biden coalition to deliver for her; it is noteworthy that as a person of color she is polling worse among minorities than Biden. You may not live in the past, but both these candidates wish they did.
Yet, both present themselves as “new wine in an old bottle.” Trump is a better-known commodity, his personal fallibility either endears him to his base, or infuriates sizable others. Trump will be a change from the current administration, for better or for worse. Will he be a change from the 1.0 version we saw four years back? Will he be more disciplined and measured? Will he bring in a team that are sworn to the sword as Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” promises to do? Even if Harris was “the last person in the room” when policy decisions of the Biden-Harris administration are made, considerable effort is underway to paint her as the ‘change candidate’. She most certainly represents more energy, and physical vitality, but that simply means she is decades younger than one she replaced. As I have noted on these pages, a President Harris will find it impossible to deliver on her core promise — overturning Dobbs, and codifying Roe. Consequently, she will be beholden to the progressive wing of her party.
It is more likely that the 2.0 versions of both will bring out the worst elements of their 1.0 release. Touché!
Both candidates have done serious belly-flops and cartwheels on key issues recently. Harris follows the script, literally, and avoids extempore conversations as much as possible, given that she is also gullible to weaving a word-salad that belies her poor grasp of issues. That is not unexpected, since she is reinventing herself from a darling of the left-wing — she averred to pretty much every one of their idiocy and provocation in her own 2020 run — to a more centrist avatar. Her reinvention is never complete if she cannot disavow, without explanation, may I add, or do a complete cartwheel on issues of import. Not that Trump is much better. Trump is known for his word-weaves — linguist John McWhorter of Columbia recently found a pattern that does convey a message if you are in the know — that leaves most observers agape with wonder, and he has not changed on that. That said, even Trump has been finding himself in serious jam when talking about the fallout of the overturning of Roe, for which he claimed credit.
Both are light on policy details. It is expected of Harris, given the bedrock of her candidacy is her reintroduction as a change-agent, though not overtly contradicting policy decisions taken by an administration where she is the second-in-command. Harris prefers to live in a bubble of ‘vibe’, in ‘joy’, and in denial of positions she had taken before. Trump has always lived in a bubble where he is the best, brightest, mostest, and the god-like superman. Giving policy details was never his cup of tea, and as ‘movement candidate du jour’ he lives in his own cocoon of ‘feelings’, and ‘strength’. Given how both have turned on a dime on policies, I am not expecting them to duke it out with the audience as to how the sausage gets made.
Cage-match as it is, I will be surprised if the blow-by-blow recount is different from what is already expected. That Kamala will flourish in her prosecutorial persona. That she will try and goad out the worst of Trump. That she will block and avoid with prepared oratorical flourish any reference to her past positions. That Trump will lose poise within minutes and come out swinging extempore. That in his attempt to tower over Harris, Trump will let his word-weave reek in derision and personal invectives. That Trump will do an inadequate job at the debate, and, at least from the point of the debate, Harris will come out far ahead.
As it stands today, the two candidates are in a statistical tie on a national basis. I consider the outcome of the debate — a known unknown – already baked in. To me, the prize-fight will confirm the narrative I have watched develop ad-nauseum on all screens. On the left is a candidate decked in hoopla, but nothing more, she is beckoned by Oprah in her trademark carnival-barker role, and a who’s who of cultural / academic / intellectual celebrities and their ilk. On your right is a candidate who is adept at bringing out the cringe as if it is a garland of glory, as if that is his wonder-weapon, and because he gets away with it. Yet, despite many differences in appearance, they are very similar.
America deserves better than hoopla and cringe – a wish-list for some other time. But this Tuesday, I will bring popcorn to the cage-match. Hope you join me.
