Sometimes it is difficult for a journalist to set aside his investigative interests and focus on a particular event. As someone who is profoundly interested in examining Western political monopolies, particularly those in the United States, I have always been fascinated by how ideological domination impacts American political discourse. The latest presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris was a stark reminder of how tightly crafted political narratives can mask important issues. Jonathan Haidt's “The Righteous Mind” expertly explores this issue, arguing that political division is frequently motivated by moral intuition rather than reality. His investigation into how these differences arise provides an appropriate framework for understanding the Trump-Harris clash. Despite heated discussions on domestic and foreign policy, the absence of US military sales to Israel—an issue with far-reaching consequences—showed the debate's limitations and underlined the ongoing monopolisation of discourse in American politics.
In the words of George Orwell, “In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” The argument resonates strongly in the aftermath of Donald Trump's first presidential debate with Kamala Harris, in which both candidates engaged in a show of hyperbole and performance, frequently overshadowing the pressing concerns that require attention. The debate, which featured stinging punches, soaring language, and personal confrontations, was a reflection of America's broken political landscape.
Harris's goal was apparent from the start: to establish herself as the voice of pragmatic reform. She insisted: "I was raised as a middle-class kid, and I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class." This direct pitch to working families was a calculated strategy to undermine Trump's long-held narrative of economic strength. The Vice President was poised and fluent throughout the discussion, demonstrating what Politico labeled her ability to "show up — and then some". Harris emphasized the Biden administration's economic accomplishments, infrastructure development, and healthcare, presenting herself as a seasoned and responsible leader capable of sustaining and expanding her record. According to NBC News, Harris made a passionate case for democracy, emphasizing the importance of protecting voting rights, healthcare access, and women's reproductive liberty.
Meanwhile, Trump, ever the provocateur, called Harris a "radical," aiming to portray her as an extension of the Biden administration's policies, which he thinks have failed the American people. I felt like, as a typical businessman-turned-politician, he was still selling his 'anti-establishment' tale by emphasizing his outsider status and contrasted Harris's "bureaucratic rigidity" with his promise of providing actual results. According to CNN's analysis, Trump relied primarily on his record of economic achievement, tax cuts, and border control throughout his presidency, casting Harris and the Biden administration as failing to manage inflation and the southern border.
Both candidates sought to claim the mantle of change. Harris challenged Trump’s use of the “same old, tired playbook” while Trump retorted, “She is Biden,” attempting to link her to the current administration's struggles. However, in their back-and-forth, significant issues were often relegated to the sidelines.
An apparent exclusion from the debate was the question of arms sales to Israel, which is essential for US foreign policy and the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict. Despite its importance in today's geopolitical atmosphere, both candidates avoided discussing it. As tensions rise in the region, voters are forced to wonder about each candidate's position on military backing and the ethical consequences of such actions. Despite the two countries' close connections, neither Trump nor Harris publicly addressed the weaponry exports to Israel, which are not only a policy issue but also raise ethical and humanitarian concerns about the Israel-Palestine conflict.
The United States has long been Israel's main arms provider, with both Democratic and Republican administrations backing military aid. A complete discussion of US-Israel relations would have addressed concerns about whether these military sales promote peace in the region or intensify the long-standing conflict. As previously reported by the BBC, there are growing calls for the United States to reassess its "blank check" approach to military aid. However, in the frenzy of the Harris-Trump debate, this critical point was overlooked.
It beggars belief that neither candidate took advantage of the opportunity to discuss their positions on the $20 billion in arms sales to Israel approved by the Biden administration just this August. I believe that armament sales to Israel have a direct impact on Middle East peace negotiations. It appears hard to hold the title of peacekeeper while constantly delivering weapons of violence. And, yes, there was a clear nervousness on both nominees' faces; by not defending their ideas or condemning others, they know who they are accountable to. As Harris stated of the broader story, "The American people are exhausted with the same old, tired playbook," yet this exhaustion may arise from a perceived disregard for international issues that influence their security and ethical considerations.
Trump, meanwhile, attempted to present himself as a strongman capable of forging peace treaties, citing the Abraham Accords as proof of his accomplishment in the Middle East. However, his failure to address the complexities of the US-Israel relationship or criticize the role of weaponry in the region created a significant gap in his foreign policy argument. As NBC News pointed out on the night, Trump's focus stayed solely on his personal successes, but he lost an opportunity to link those victories to bigger global policy concerns, particularly Israel.
The Trump-Harris discussion was full of dramatic moments, with each candidate attempting to win over their supporters by either criticising the other's record or giving grandiose predictions for America's future. However, the absence of attention to crucial foreign policy problems, including US military sales to Israel, created a significant hole. As the United States continues to play a key role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through military funding, both candidates passed up a crucial opportunity to engage voters on one of the world's most contentious topics.
Jonathan Haidt's homework of political division is applicable here; rather than bridging the gap between polarised camps, both Trump and Harris played to their own moral intuitions, but neither addressed one of the most morally complicated dilemmas confronting US foreign policy today. As voters prepare for the 2024 election, the exclusion of such important issues may cause them to wonder how seriously their leaders take the worldwide ramifications of American policies. In a moment that captured the debate's dynamic, Harris said, "When Congress passes a bill to reinstate the protections of Roe v. Wade, I will proudly sign it into law." This aggressiveness contrasted strikingly with Trump's evasive reactions to a nationwide abortion ban, demonstrating their differing leadership styles.
As the debate ended, it became clear that, while both candidates gave remarkable performances, they failed to address critical topics like arms sales to Israel, which might define their foreign policy legacies. In an era when voters want authenticity and clear viewpoints, the lack of dialogue on such important issues raises concerns about their priorities.
Image: Flickr/Gage Skidmore
No image changes made.
Comments