Emotions today, September 11, 2024, run the gamut from the joy at the remarkable experience of watching Kamala Harris mop the floor with Donald Trump in the debate last night to the horrific sadness of yet another commemoration of the 9/11 anniversary, 23 years later. Today should be a day of national remembrance and public service. Instead, democracy is fighting for its life. It feels theatrical to write those words, but that doesn't change the fact that they are true. We saw it on full display in the debate last night. Greg Sargent, who often hits these things dead on the nose, had an observation about about the ridiculous "Haitian immigrants eating cats" nonsense that Donald Trump has been peddling and repeated last night and that JD Vance doubled down on in a post-debate interview.
It's not just that the Haitian story is ridiculous. It's not just that it’s a lie. It is both of those things, but it is more than that; it is also dangerous. Dehumanizing people is what makes inhuman treatment of them possible. It’s how you justify the family separation policy that ripped children from their parents, some of them so young that reunification is still elusive more than five years later. In extreme cases, dehumanization is a path towards genocide, the way the Nazis called Jews in Germany vermin and claimed that they spread disease and used the blood of non-Jewish children in rituals as prelude to the Holocaust. Trump is using similar language as a prelude to the proposed mass deportations of migrants that both he and Project 2025 (which he claimed last night he’d never read) call for. Trump and Vance are setting up a society where atrocities against other human beings can be justified by dehumanizing them first. That cannot be the legacy of our country post-9/11. Democracy is too important to fall prey to that. We are not the country of Donald Trump’s cult. Last night, Kamala Harris reminded us of who we are and who Trump is, reducing him to a cartoonish figure, the rumored portrayal of him in the “Back to the Future” movies.
Sunday night, in The Week Ahead edition of the newsletter, we talked about what Vice President Harris needed to accomplish in the debate. Many of us agreed the key was reassuring undecided voters that whether they agreed with her on all of the issues or not, there would be room for them in an America led by Kamala Harris, that they would be welcome. Harris did exactly that, repeatedly committing to be a president who would care about everyone. Kamala Harris for the people: “Honestly, I think it’s a tragedy that we have someone who wants to be president who has consistently, over the course of his career, attempted to use race to divide the American people. You know, I do believe that the vast majority of us know that we have so much more in common than what separates us, and we don’t want this kind of approach that is just constantly trying to divide us, and especially by race.” That's the message. We have so much more in common. Donald Trump may have the concept of a plan, but Kamala Harris is committed to the hard work of governing. You are going to hear him lie a lot tonight, Harris said in her opening statement. Trump proceeded to deliver on her promise. We rarely, if ever, see reporting on what the Democratic base thinks about its candidates. We've seen plenty of reporting on what Trump’s base thinks about Trump. Endless focus groups of voters who are devoted to Trump, or who turned to Trump after being Obama voters, or who voted for him once and are deciding whether to do it again. People at Trump rallies. But I can’t remember the last time I saw a focus group of voters for Kamala on the news, talking about why they were committed to her. Last night in our Civil Discourse debate chat room I saw it, though.
I saw the power in a room full of dedicated, unapologetic, Democratic voters, a room united behind the purpose of electing Kamala Harris and restoring democracy. It made me wonder why we don’t see that kind of reporting in the media. Your comments last night were wise and witty, sometimes marked by frustration over the unfair advantage Trump was given in interrupting Harris and bogarting speaking time, while recognizing he repeatedly skewered himself when given that advantage. You were excited about the possibilities but also pragmatic and practical about what is necessary for a democratic victory. You lifted me up.
Did the debate make a difference in the coming election? That was what I was looking for. For the most part, it’s likely that Trump voters and Harris voters stay confirmed in their beliefs. It’s possible some voters may shift having seen Harris’ strengths and Trump’s weaknesses on display. There was one particular moment in the debate that may have shifted some votes in Harris’ favor. Trump droned on about how wars, the ones in Ukraine and Israel, would've never happened on his watch. Harris turned to him and said that if he had been president, Putin would be sitting in Kyiv looking towards Poland next. It’s a powerful moment and worth watching the clip. Then, Harris closed. She made the point that in Pennsylvania (a, if not the, key swing state), there are 800,000 Polish American voters. Might they be more inclined to choose Harris after that if they were previously undecided? It was a compelling moment.
Thanks to all of you who joined the Civil Discourse live stream debate chat last night. It was crazy and fast moving, and I'm not sure I would've made it through the tense first minutes of the debate without you all. I loved reading your comments and having the opportunity to share our takes on the debate in real time. I’m tremendously proud of the Civil Discourse community. Were in this together, Joyce |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.