Who ‘Won’ the Debate?

Robert Koehler

(9/11) If nothing else, Donald Trump is forcing mainstream America out of its jail cell of clichés and political correctness – even though his apparent "vision" for America is primarily a dark comedy of lies.

Yeah, I watched the debate. Was the Trump character played by Rodney Dangerfield? Maybe Don Rickles? He could have been. The problem, however, is that there’s nothing funny about racism, which seemed to be the primary core of Trump’s blather.

Did Kamala Harris "win" the debate? Uh . . . this wasn’t a ping-pong game, much as "who won?" seems to be the media focal point. My question is: Did anybody win? Did the whole country lose?

One thing I must concede is that, in listening for 90 minutes to Trump’s arrogant irreverence toward the country’s centrist rituals and propriety, I must acknowledge at least this much: Our would-be dictator-in-chief is trying to push the country beyond the military-industrial status quo of the moment. His irreverence is so blatant he is driving neocon Republicans crazy, as exemplified by former veep Dick Cheney’s recent announcement that he plans to vote for Harris, declaring that Trump can "never be trusted with power again."

Maybe, as the media notes, this was a big boost for Harris, but I find myself unable to separate Cheney from his legacy of hideous militarism: the Iraq war in particular, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed, the "weapons of mass destruction" lies, Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and the torture of prisoners. Suddenly, in the media, those are now simply historical abstractions, hardly worth mentioning in detail. The American past is sealed shut and mythologized as the good old days.

What matters is a unified America, right? As Time Magazine reported: "Harris was asked about the Cheneys’ endorsement while on the campaign trail, visiting a spice shop in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. She said she was ‘honored’ to have their endorsement, and that it represented the opportunity to ‘turn the page’ on partisan divisiveness.’"

She added that Americans are "exhausted about the division" – seeming to imply that the country was once solid and unified, fully in agreement on the nature of American values and such matters as who are enemies are. This seems to be one of the media talking points of the moment, which is ironic almost beyond belief. A nation born in a state of legalized slavery has never been a unified nation. What unity that does currently exist isn’t the result of Americans simply deciding to get along – or all agreeing on a specific, external enemy – but rather the result of decades and decades and decades of intense struggle, a la the civil rights movement, the women’s rights movement, the workers’ movements, etc., etc., and the ongoing creation of the country as it exists today.

Fascinatingly, in the wake of Cheney’s endorsement of Harris, Trump wrote on Truth Social: "He’s the King of Endless, Nonsensical Wars, wasting Lives and Trillions of Dollars, just like Comrade Kamala Harris. I am the Peace President, and only I will stop World War III!"

I note this not because I believe anything whatsoever that Trump says, but only to writhe in the irony that the main guy talking about peace (i.e., "peace") on the national stage is a darkly comedic liar and narcissist whose primary talking point is racism.

During the debate, most of what Trump blathered was screw-loose nonsense, mixed, of course, with his special brand of racism, that is to say: the invasion of illegal aliens. This was the issue Trump rambled on about regardless of what he was asked to address, be it the economy, abortion, the Jan. 6 riot or whatever. To wit:

"Millions of people are pouring into the country – from prisons, jails, mental institutions, insane asylums. These are people she and Biden let into our country."

"She’s a Marxist! . . Twenty-one million people are pouring in. Many of these people are criminals."

In Springfield, Ohio, Haitian immigrants are "eating dogs and cats – the pets of people that live there."

Regarding Venezuela and other countries: "They’ve taken their criminals off the streets and given them to her (Harris). Crime is down all over the world – except here."

Enough, enough! Trump’s audacious charisma apparently has given him some sort of media immunity. His lies – racist and otherwise – are simply too numerous to be questioned. But as I listen to him, screaming to myself, I also sense the nature of his appeal. He’s such a brat – so shameless in his attack on conventional wisdom, so blatant in his contempt for mainstream norms and certainties – that he has defied Cheney and the neocons and created his MAGA base: followers who have had it up to here with the rules of centrist dominance and political correctness.

The media consensus seems to be that Harris won the ping-pong game – I mean, the debate – because she spoke with clarity, factual accuracy and sufficient contempt to continually put Trump in his place.

And yes, I get this, she won the ping-pong game. But in her "victory," what deeper truth did Harris advance? What not-yet-existing country did she envision and present to the American people . . .and the world? I heard the clichés, especially the military clichés, but I didn't see the vision.

Read other articles by Robert Koehler

Read other PeaceVoice Articles