A Circus Without the Bread- The Everyman's Post-Debate Analysis

After the complete and utter failure of Joe Biden in July at the first presidential debate against Donald Trump, the Democratic Party undemocratically forced their candidate to withdraw from the race. A month later at the DNC convention, Kamala Harris, in a similar manner, was undemocratically installed as the new Democratic presidential candidate, who went on to choose Minnesota’s governor Tim Walz as her vice president.

Harris began a rigorous election campaign which consisted of a plethora of canned speeches, where she even plagiarized her past speeches at times and participated in a number of celebrity-hosted events. Curiously absent from her schedule were any in-depth interviews, which all presidential aspirants have traditionally given in order to share their policies and temperament. Relenting to the pressure to give interviews, sometimes even coming from friendly networks like CNN, she participated in a long-form conversation with her running mate Tim Walz that was long on music and bland “white man” tacos, and short on anything substantive about what their administration would look like.

Finally, more than a month after being “nominated” as the candidate, she gave a taped interview with CNN’s Dana Bash. An interview that was, for a party obsessed with “historic” events, in fact historic in that she felt the need to bring along Tim Walz for support. The interviewer did manage to press Harris on her policies and her past flip-flops, and was therefore just enough to give the “appearance” of journalism. However, once again, Harris’ answers displayed her inherent lack of any coherent positions, and despite claiming that her values “haven’t changed.”

Next came the debate between Trump and Harris this past week in Philadelphia, which was supposed to be the second debate between candidate Biden and Trump. After some petty wrangling to change the debate rules in Harris’ favor, the two candidates met for the first time and debated for ninety minutes. In a culture that has become accustomed to “bread and circuses” type political events–consisting of algorithmic-powered talking points from a gaslighting media–the first presidential debate between Harris and Trump was mostly “circus” without the “bread.”

Both candidates spoke to their base. Both candidates failed (most of the time) to give clear answers to pressing questions. Both candidates (for the most part) repeated talking points that Americans have heard from them before. And finally, both candidates traded personal barbs and wandered off into topics that Americans generally have no interest in. And then there were the ABC “moderators” David Muir and Lindsey Davis, who could not control their bias, may have been reading Harris’ facial expressions, and seemingly just couldn’t wait for their cue to jump in and “fact-check” Trump (while at the same time giving Harris a pass).

In sum, the debate was more of the tired “sound and fury” that is representative of DC politics in general, and of the current presidential race in particular. Nothing substantive in terms of serious discussions of policy issues was seen that night. Nonetheless, this didn’t mean that the debate did not have any bright spots nor that it did not present the proverbial “signs of the times” that seem to transcend partisan politics. Here then follow a few responses from The Everyman’s staff including their reflections on the debate.

Trump: A Modern Jeremiah? By Evan McClanahan

In our Sunday School class, we are reading the entire Bible in a year. We just finished Jeremiah and Lamentations, and they are…a doozy. If you are not familiar with these two Books, the prophet Jeremiah spends most of his life pleading with Israel to repent or be destroyed by the Babylonians. Lamentations, also believed to have been written by Jeremiah laments that they did not repent. If this were a “you are here” timeline, we appear to be somewhere near where the Israelites were just before Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Judah.

After watching the “debate” between President Trump and Vice President Harris, it occurred to me that Trump is basically an Old Testament Prophet, while Harris is more like a false prophet of the type who promises false peace. In Jeremiah, his main argument is with the false prophets who preach “peace, peace" when there is no peace. They are the ones who are always saying, “Trust the science/government/bureaucracy/administration. There are so many of us, we can’t possibly be wrong.”

Most pundits seem to agree that Harris “won” the debate because she was poised, well-rehearsed, had her facts and rhetoric at hand, and made no major mistakes (it also helps to have the moderators on your side). Trump, meanwhile, was all bromide and bluster, light on details, and negative about the state of our country. He was a bit boorish, repetitive, and vague, while she promised smiles and “joy.” He was undoubtedly baited and defensive, having borne the weaponization of his own government against him, in addition to an attempt on his life. He was understandably frustrated.

The debate overall was revolting as rhetoric, basically consisting of an exercise in gaslighting and manipulation. But if I could offer an analogy that might help us to better understand Trump and his opponent, I would say that he is something like Jeremiah who feels it is his duty to predict doom, while Kamala is the one who repeats, “Peace, peace” when there is no actual peace.

Here are a few similarities between Trump and Jeremiah:

- Trump, like Jeremiah, is a hated figure.

- Trump has been arrested by the governing authorities.

- Trump is (rightly) predicting that no good ends will come from the current course of the country (excessive spending, inflation, global wars, and open immigration).

- Trump is fighting against the whole of (or at least most of) society, both the cultural and political powers.

Despite being an incumbent, and despite major warning signs coming from the economy and immigration, Harris’ sell to her fellow countrymen is that everything is fine, don’t believe your eyes, and that everything is under control. It is a tempting message to those who would rather believe a pleasing lie rather than confront hard truths.

While I am not saying that President Trump is a "righteous" man, if he could tap into this image and embrace it, perhaps he might succeed in appealing to the evangelical base that he both wants and needs to court. As he said after the debate in a press conference, "Hey I don't like being so negative but I really have no choice given the state of things." While not claiming to actually a true prophet, perhaps this is a paradigm that Trump could hint at, a paradigm that one who has any level of basic knowledge of the Bible just might be able to relate to.

The New Art of Real-time “Fact-Checking” in Presidential Debates by Bradley Shumaker

Something new surfaced at the Trump-Harris debate—a unique form of “fact-checking.” Typically, fact checks involve some level of careful research, which require a reasonable amount of time to conduct. In a brand new development for the first time ever in a presidential debate, ABC News made the decision to “fact-check” one of the candidates (but not the other) “on the spot” in real-time. Here are several examples from the interesting evening:

Aborted Babies who are “Born-alive”

The practice of abortion after birth (involving babies who were originally targeted for abortion being “born-alive”) was referenced during the debate by one of the candidates. One of the moderators offered an immediate “correction” to the candidate and their viewers by stating: “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it is born.” The correction was also made interesting by the tone of the moderator, which seemed to imply that the candidate was out of their mind for even suggesting it.

But fact-checks should involve facts (…shouldn’t they?). The true fact of the matter is that babies in certain states are denied medical care and are left to die after “botched” abortions. As a result of this real and sickening practice, the short lives of unlucky babies are ended, and no one is held to account.

How do we know this? Well, even though only a few states report data on instances of born-alive infants (such that the true numbers are likely to be much, much larger), the CDC estimates that between 2003 and 2014 over 140 babies (that we know) of were allowed to die (i.e., be killed) in this type of fact pattern. And furthermore, there have been at least 43 documented cases across five states in just the past few years.

To clarify then, in some states in this country we are aware that it is legal to kill a baby (by neglect) after it is born. In such states, the abortionist intentionally sentences the baby to die, and then suffers no consequences as a result of their actions.

In light of the facts, this instantaneous ABC “fact-check” cannot be argued to be partially, or even emotely correct.

Crime

Crime is up in this country. This should have been a simple sad statement of fact without question or controversy on which both candidates could agree. Even though this increase in crime is well known by anyone currently living in the United States, one of the candidates (who is not part of the present administration) took the time to point this out. It was a simple, general statement, with no specificity as to the type of crime.

Nevertheless, the candidate was quickly “corrected” by ABS News, who indicated the statement to be wrong. And how could such an obvious statement of fact be wrong? ABC News informed us that certain FBI figures supplied by the present administration indicate that violent crime is down.

But who said anything about only “violent” crime? Furthermore, what gives ABC News the right to add additional, specific words into the statements of a candidate?

This is like a debater sharing that sales of automobiles are up (based on factual data), and then being told by ABC News that they are incorrect because sales of blue cars are actually down. The fact that one category of crime may be down (when viewed from one particular selected year to another), does not mean that all categories of crime are down, or that crime in general is down.

Ridiculous.

Conclusion

This new strategy of fact-checking in real-time by a major news network—while at the same time either negligently or intentionally applying incorrect facts as the “check”—created what was perhaps the most one-sided presidential debate in modern history. Anyone who watched saw what was essentially a two-hour television commercial for candidate Harris, all done under the cover of “objectivity.” Going forward, this should lead potential future right-of-center candidates, who because of their political leanings find themselves out of favor with companies such as ABC News (and possibly other networks), to ask themselves an important question:

Why bother…?

A Game of Truth or Scare by J. Antonio Juarez

Most of the debate was simply a variation on the same theme that has become our current political culture. Harris for her part was composed and well-rehearsed, and she managed to keep her weaknesses in check. Right from the get-go, she orated into her hackneyed word salad soliloquies about “democracy” and warnings about “going back,” as well as trotting out the same old tired Blue-anon narratives such as purported statements about “good people on both sides” or “blood bath” hoaxes. All the while, she was oblivious to the fact that real-time tracking during the debate, and focus group responses after it, showed that she failed to convince undecided voters who were fully aware that they did better under Trump’s administration. Moreover, she accomplished the rhetorical version of an off-camera kick to the shin when she successfully goaded Trump with her comments about his rally crowd sizes. Trump should have known better than to take the bait, but for a candidate to resort to such tactics it should not and cannot make them a serious contender for the highest office in the United States.

Trump for his part was the same blunt instrument that he always has been, a trait that all of his supporters have come to accept. His ego and his off the cuff manner serves as both an asset and a liability. On the one hand, his comments such as his “run spot run” criticism of Harris’ policy page on her campaign’s website, or his seizing the moment to turn the tables on Harris with “excuse me I’m speaking” remark, while puerile in nature, were far more effective than any composed scorn. On the other hand, his inability to shrug off crowd size or J6 comments as easily as he did for the loaded question about Harris’ racial identity (which not a single person suffering from the effects of Bidenomics or their open border policy gives one excreta about), remains a serious point of weakness for him.

Furthermore, his showmanship supersedes his ability to explain complex social issues in a serious (and persuasive) manner. This was and is extremely unfortunate, especially when it comes to the most pressing issues on voter’s minds— immigration and abortion. While he did make reference to the Colorado city of Aurora, he failed to describe how the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua took over an entire apartment complex, and instead opted to address the Haitian cat eating story in Springfield, Ohio. In, what was a missed opportunity, his bombastic style could have worked in his favor and been used to cow Muir’s “fact-check” that violent crime is somehow down.

Worse yet was the discussion about the abortion issue, an issue that is far more complex at the legal level than it is on the moral one. Had Trump had his facts straight, he could have explained just how extreme the Democratic position is, as Catholic apologist Trent Horn recently did. This would have left Linsey Davis scrambling to defend the mendacity of her “fact-checks” concerning late-term and born-alive abortions.

All in all, the debate resembled a reality TV gameshow of “Truth or Scare,” where the truth was ever present and just waiting to be revealed like the letters on Wheel of Fortune, but as is typical of our unserious culture, got lost in the mess of partisan politics.

Harris for her part remains the consummate California Leftie who exemplifies someone who has managed to fail up the ladder of success. A politician whose “hope” and “vibes” masks, as former California judge Joe Brown said in a recent interview, a banal but despotic personality who openly bragged about the damage she could do (and has done) to someone’s life with “the stroke of her pen.” She is a shapeshifting tool of the Democratic machine who embodies the same elitist scorn that Hilary Clinton exuded for middle-America. In fact, some may remember an experiment that was done in 2017 where the sexes of Clinton and Trump were reversed, which proved that it wasn’t “sexism” that turned voters off of Clinton, but condescension. Harris’ biggest failing (if you were careful to observe her facial expressions) may simply be that the one thing that most Americans will not put up with is being talked down to.

Trump for his part is the same vintage “vulgarian” that he always has been, albeit one that was tested and hardened over the years that he has been involved in politics. For him, what you see is what you get. Even if our culture attempts to deal with, but does not seem to understand, the intractable problems that our nation has in the most superficial manner, deep down they understand what Trump means when he said that we are “a nation in decline.” While they may not be able to articulate the issues in terms of economics, the law, or foreign policy, they can at least see the wars happening around the world, the troubles arising from our open borders, and their smaller paychecks. Trump may be a blunt tool in a nation which requires a complete set of specific tools to fix, but under the current circumstances, the pain and disillusion many Americans currently feel is equally as blunt. For them, Trump is enough.

Photo Credit- MSNBC