The debate is behind us. I find that nothing changed. Trump remains repulsive. (In a Presidential debate, did he raise the pseudo-issue of immigrants eating cats and dogs? Really?) The man is visibly unstable, shows poor judgment, lacks integrity, and should not be President. Harris did not improve her case, either. I’ve written about my decision not to vote for a presidential candidate.
On the issue of peace between Israel and Palestine, Harris produced a confused, mixed message:
· “I have, my entire career and life, supported Israel and the Israeli people.”
· “Far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed. Children, mothers”
· “we know … this war must end. It must end immediately.”
· “The way it will end is we need a ceasefire deal, and we need the hostages out.” She was unclear on whether a ceasefire means the end of the war.
· She supports a two-state solution and the need for Palestinians to “realize their right to dignity, security, freedom and self-determination.”
· Notably, in light of what I wrote on September 8th, she did not take the opportunity to make the same demand of the Palestinians and their bigoted “from the River to the Sea” supporters regarding the rights and dignity of Jews and Israelis, which they seek to cancel.
There are two irremediable flaws with Harris’ formulation on the current war. First, it offers warm, fuzzy goodwill to all parties (except Hamas, to whom it offers no practical threat). There is something for nearly everyone, but nothing dangerous to anyone.
Ironically, this list of her statements collated by my AI and culled from reports of her debate performance resembles a Netanyahu speech. It is a combination of slogans that play well in focus groups but don’t hang together in the real world. Harris gave us a well-crafted presentation that sounds good to those poised to hear what they want to hear.
The second flaw is that it projects indecisive weakness. Evil players read this sort of thing and conclude quite reasonably that she is confused and susceptible to pressure. She presents a Carter-like, not to say Netanyahu-like, image of a non-leader.
The issue of what to do with Hamas illustrates the problem. Following October 7th, Harris labeled Hamas “a barbaric terrorist organization.” In the debate, she declared that the October 7th assault on Israel was “unspeakable,” and Israel must “never again” face such an assault. She stated on August 31: “The threat Hamas poses to the people of Israel — and American citizens in Israel — must be eliminated, and Hamas cannot control Gaza.”
But she leaves us wondering how we will achieve those goals if the war magically ends “immediately.” Sinwar is still alive. Yes, Hamas stands reduced. It has been beaten down from its pre-war military structure as an army to its original structure as a fanatic, Islamist, disorganized, and very violent militia. Yet, Hamas still has the power to steal 500 million dollars in relief supplies to fund its activities, and maintain the terror state in Gaza. The work of defeating it is not complete. If the war ends “immediately,” who will make it disappear? Magical thinking, anyone?
Harris seeks to become President. As Truman taught us, the buck will stop with her. Therefore, her presentation put wind in the sails of all sorts of nasty people who see America and American values as a threat. It discouraged allies. Sinwar probably watched from his bunker and liked the confusion he heard. Xi and Putin presumably enjoyed more comfortable viewing conditions, but we may safely assume that they also enjoyed the show. NATO leaders, Asian and Pacific allies, Ukrainians, and Israelis, probably less. America’s allies must be asking: How dependable will this person be in a crisis?
The impression Harris generated is that she is a competent prosecuting attorney who overwhelmed her opponent with her debating skills. But we know no more than we did before the debate about whether there is more to her. Being a competent lawyer made Lincoln an even greater President, but Nixon … not so much. The lack of principles at his core is what brought him down, a stark figure of warning to any attorney who would be President. Harris is supposed to show us how she will act if elected. She needs to address the concern that she uses her high tactical legal skills to cover up a fundamental hollowness at the core.
Trump is unacceptable. Harris appears hollow. The challenges of navigating America’s way in next four years remain what they were, unforgivingly great. So far, this election shaped up as an American tragedy with global ramifications.
This analysis rings very true, I understand how you feel.