The Grand Illusion
Although most observers believe that Kamala Harris “won” the debate with Donald Trump, she never answered one of the key questions: “Are you better off today than you were four years ago.”
One of the reasons she likely didn’t is because the question is, underneath the simple words, a variation on the old trope question, “Have you stopped beating your spouse?”
Another reason is that no matter what the nostalgia buffs think, we can’t go back to the situation of four years ago, when what worked economically then would have different impacts now.
But Harris missed a great opportunity to defuse the whole “better off then” conceit, because most people regard the past as somehow better, except for the few times of world-changing disasters.
The answer Harris should have given is:
That’s the wrong question. What matters is what policies will make your life better from here on out, not what happened four years ago. The United States needs a leader and policies that address today’s challenges, not selective memories of the past. Here are my policies to improve life for all Americans, not just the wealthiest Americans, but all Americans.
From there she could have launched into her listing of policy proposals.
The state of the economy is one of the great worries for most Americans, and until she addresses it head-on, she’s going to have trouble beating Trump, and the fact that she’s only slightly ahead illustrates the lack of faith in her ability to handle the economy, despite the fact that Trump is a lying, misogynistic, bigoted, hate-mongering, and often incompetent bully.
And like Harris, we all need to ask the right questions for today and tomorrow.
I agree entirely that Harris seemed to miss a few objectively important beats in her answers. However, I have to wonder if the beats she did hit will do the job. Her comments to the 100k Polish community living in Pennsylvania seemed well-rehearsed and targeted, and really doubling down on the post-Roe problems with abortions is also a clear strategic decision. Though ignoring the economy seems like a classic mistake, with any luck this will get her over the hump.
And if not that, do you think Trump’s madness and mendacity, both demonstrated to a level never seen even by his low standards, will tip some of this balance?
I also think that the question is the wrong question, but for different reasons. The pandemic really screwed the global supply chains and created massive unemployment, peaking in late Spring of 2020 at 14% +/- in the US according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. If Trump had actually cared about people in the US who died at an alarming rate he could have easily been re-elected. Instead Biden and Harris won in 2020, I think in part, because voters believed they would care enough to pull the US out of the pandemic mess. And they did. Government stimulus checks started in Trump’s administration because they were pushed in a bipartisan fashion by the house and Senate. But there was strong pushback by conservatives and many economists that thought runaway inflation would ensue, followed by a strong recession. Some inflation did occur but that was driven more by an insane house buying surge coming out of the pandemic cabin fever. The fed clamped down hard with increased rates to try to control spending and manage a soft landing here in the US. By all accounts the US was far more successful in this monetary policy than any other large economy in the world.
The unemployment rate in Nov 2020 was 6.7%, in Nov 2021 4.1%, in Nov 2022 3.6% and has stayed there since. Meanwhile inflation has been brought under control without major job losses.
Harris did not take the bait by trying to explain this in 2 minutes or less – without the aid of charts or graphs. Presidential debates do not lend themselves to any reasonable discussion of economic policies. Instead she attempted to explain that she understands the state of families in the US who are hurting and outlined some policies that could target those constituencies. Hope. Forward looking. Always a good message rather than being a curmudgeon.
I think that Kamala Harris is smart to not get into the weeds of policy. There are many voters that pick their President based on feel, as crazy as that sounds to me.
They can pick a George W. Bush because they could see themselves “having a beer with him.”
They can pick Donald Trump because he’s a rich bully and doesn’t have to listen to anyone, and they dream of that themselves.
They can pick Bill Clinton because “gosh darn it, he feels your pain!”
Hilary Clinton, on the other hand, did every homework assignment, sat for innumerable interviews, published detailed policy proposals… and was defeated.
Ditto John Kerry, who was decent and unable to counter the character assassins.
Kamala Harris will never make a dent in the MAGA faithful, but she took a major step towards cementing her persona with the debate. The pugnacious prosecutor that has a plan, I like it!
I agree with the comments that it’s best she didn’t try. And I’m also sure it’s a deliberate decision. People have eyes, bank accounts, and gas tanks and know that things cost more than they used to. Trying to explain how it’s not as bad as it is elsewhere in the world or that is not as bad as it could’ve been or would be under her opponent’s policies is both tricky and likely has a very short slope before you hit diminishing returns.
As MRE and KTL suggested, It’s better she spent the limited response time she had on other things that will move voters in her favor.
Three reasons I do not consider the question “wrong”.
The question was predictable: and both debaters should have had pat answers ready; such as the one offered by LEM.
Communication is dependent on understanding the meaning of the words used in the presentation of a question: where there is a debate, especially political debate, it is de rigueur to rephrase the question so as to ensure the answer given is applicable.
Just as there is no “stupid” question so there is no “wrong” question: this question from the moderator was generalized on purpose in order to allow the debater latitude in their answer.
One hopes that this missed opportunity to lighten the burden of the debate on the economy does not torpedo Harris. She should have realized that she needed a national TV debate as much as Trump so as to cast her persona at the Trump forever voters.
Displaying the aggressive bullying prosecutor should have titillated them.