Talking Point

YOUR COLUMNIST saw the debate between the aspirants of the US presidential election, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, and came away with the impression that Trump had trumped. He was more forceful, punchy with one-liners and, as usual, peppered his statements with many exaggerations and lies. Harris was okay enough but appeared like a wannabe Barack Obama with­out his rhetorical flair or charisma. Your columnist was however wrong. The American media’s reaction was that Harris had won unequivocally. She was said to have baited Trump into issues like his crowd sizes even though he would have said it anyway. And there was more in this vein. Because of the kind of antipathy Trump arouses, an average debate performance had been turned into a work of genius.

That is also the thing with debates— who wins is usually just a matter of opinion. Someone might have great arguments but gets drowned in a sea of noise, as what happens in television news channels daily. The American poll­ster Nate Silver had an interesting take after the present debate. On the question of whether it will help Harris, he thought the debate itself would not but how it is reported in mass media would have a greater impact. People, in general, want to be seen in consonance with the gen­eral mood, and if everyone around you is agreeing on something, then you really don’t want to be the lone person wonder­ing if something is wrong with you.

Interestingly, even pro-Republican media like Fox News didn’t think Trump won because they expected him to expose Harris for her relentless shifting of policy positions in her ca­reer. It wasn’t going to happen because it is not one person debating another when the stakes are so high. There would be huge teams and consultants to expect every question, plan every word and gesture. Harris had the ad­vantage of sticking to her script. Trump relies on instinct and takes off whenev­er he feels like. It has served him well in becoming a president and then taking absolute control of the Republican Party when no one, including possibly him, thought it was possible.

The difference in this debate was in him being too cautious over some subjects. Like refusing to answer on abortion. It is going to be the singular issue which might trip up his chances of winning the election. Ordinarily, he would have taken an extreme position to cater to his followers. Republicans have already made abortion bans in 14 states. But women cutting across party lines are opposed to it and in a national election Trump sees its potency. He therefore has to do something which regular politicians do all the time but he is not used to, which is to obfuscate or play a balancing act. And that then makes him come across as unau­thentic, exactly the main reason why undecided voters remain unconvinced about Harris. On any other count, this debate was never his to lose because he did what he has been doing for years now and reaped its windfalls.

About The Author

Madhavankutty Pillai

Madhavankutty Pillai has no specialisations whatsoever. He is among the last of the generalists. And also Open chief of bureau, Mumbai  

•