Fervent Democrats warn us that if Donald Trump wins a second term in the White House he will quickly turn the United States into a Fascist hell-hole in which gun-toting misogynist racists would run amok and, while about it, he would cosy up to his paymaster Vladimir Putin and other like-minded thugs. The former president and his cronies say that Kamala Harris is at heart a Marxist totalitarian who, if elected president, would destroy the economy, ruin the remnants of the middle class and pander to the loony left which has taken over so many once revered academic institutions. If both are right, or even if only one lot is, we are in for some interesting times.
In the United States, politicians enjoy shouting insults at one another, a habit that has been picked up by Javier Milei, who greatly admires “The Donald.” Most North Americans have grown used to this, which is why they took it for granted that Tuesday’s “debate” would not be a reasoned discussion between two seasoned politicians who disagree about how best to solve difficult problems, but a no-holds-barred prize fight they could interpret in pugilistic terms.
The consensus among the cognoscenti appears to be that while Kamala, who apparently spent weeks in training for the encounter and was helped by the two journalists who posed as referees but made no effort to hide their sympathies, did land some fierce punches which hurt Trump, she failed to make him go completely berserk as she clearly wanted to. Few commentators bothered about anything else; most are well aware that in politics images and sensations matter far more than rational arguments, let alone mere facts. They say Kamala has “vibes” going for her.
However, while the Democrat candidate did herself no harm by making herself look every bit as tough as the bruiser she tangled with, she did nothing to dispel doubts about what exactly she stands for and what she would do if, as could well happen, next January she gets sworn in as president of what is still the most powerful country on Earth and, in consequence, as the de facto “leader of the free world.” Would she be up to the job? Would she dutifully obey the orders of a shadowy political camarilla? Or, as Bernie Sanders suggested, would she swing sharply towards the left? Nobody really knows.
Despite having been second-in-command in the White House under Joe Biden for over three-and-a-half years, Kamala remains remarkably hard to read. Of course, when accused of “flip-flopping” all over the place she swears that her “principles” have not changed at all and insinuates that hard experience has induced her to ditch the trenchant leftist views she once held. This may be true, but persuading those pesky swing voters in battleground states that she is not an air-headed opportunist who merely repeats what her handlers tell her will help her win, will not be easy, especially if she continues to refuse to let herself be interviewed by potentially unfriendly journalists eager to trip her up.
Luckily for Kamala, during the debate she did not have to say anything much about the new-fangled “opportunity economy” she says she would build with government handouts, how she would go about preventing millions of unwanted migrants from crossing the southern border into the US, or manage foreign affairs in an increasingly dangerous world. Trump tried to get her to answer such questions and explain why the administration she is part of has not begun to apply the policies designed to bring North Americans together and make them all richer she says she has in mind, but she had no interest in obliging him and, given the debate format, which by favouring soundbites discourages attempts to go into details, had no need to do so.
Outside the US, people are scratching their heads and wondering just why the inhabitants of country which has no shortage of talent must choose as president either a blustering egomaniac who lives in a world of his own or a lady who reached her present eminence only because, four years ago, Biden thought he needed a “woman of colour” on his ticket and also because he knew that his fellow Democrats would not regard her as a viable replacement should his cognitive deterioration become too evident.
Trump came to the fore thanks to the burning resentment of the many millions of North Americans who were getting left behind in an economy that was quickly shedding old-fashioned industry and were openly despised by the credentialled class that was taking over their country. They sensed that Trump – who also disliked “the elites” – was on their side and, far from feeling horrified by his tirades against undocumented migrants and the “swamp creatures” of the entrenched political class and the bureaucracies associated with it, they enjoyed listening to them. Nothing that has happened in the last four years had made them change their minds. What is more, according to the polls, Trump is rapidly gaining ground among black and Hispanic voters.
Unlike Trump, Kamala Harris does not owe her rise to the feelings of any sizeable chunk of the population but to the inner workings of members of an opaque political establishment. The Democrats accepted her as their candidate after Biden said he supported her only because they feared that holding an open convention could cost them the rapidly approaching elections, what with activists of the pro-Hamas brigade and ultra-woke progressives fighting middle-of-the-road party stalwarts who back Israel and have no time for notions about gender spectrums and the like.
Had Biden called it quits far earlier, they would surely have chosen someone else, but now they are stuck with Kamala. Though she did well in the televised confrontation with Trump, her campaign could go awry if she stopped boycotting the press and started ladling out large portions of her much-derided “word salads.” This is something Democrat strategists are well aware of, so they can be relied on to do their utmost to ensure that she continues to follow the course they have mapped out for her.
Though this could be enough to get her over the line, it would also mean that the next “leader of the free world” would be a lady who – if her performance in office is anything to go by – would be unqualified for the role, but it would seem that such considerations matter little to the many who take it for granted that letting Trump return to the White House would be a great deal worse than any conceivable alternative.
Comments