MALIK: Disappointing debate
The presidential debate on September 10 was a heated match between former President Donald J. Trump and current Vice President Kamala Harris. It was a highly anticipated event following the dramatic changes and the two parties' national conventions in the previous months.
The debate could have accomplished many things for Harris, such as introducing her nationally, given her lack of press interviews, and allowing her to clarify her policies.
Trump, as a former president, had a chance to let viewers remember the economy under his administration with less inflation, potentially show himself as the candidate with greater expertise and show that he is capable against an opponent that is not current President Joseph R. Biden Jr., simultaneously tying Harris to unpopular policies from the current administration.
People left the debate discussing whether Trump or Harris won. Win or lose, both candidates were more interested in sensationalizing U.S. issues than trying to solve them.
On Trump's end, he consistently discussed false rumors that played into and exacerbated xenophobia and transphobia by claiming that illegal immigrants are "eating the pets" in Springfield, Ohio, and that Harris wants to do "transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison."
Even with moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis chiming in to address the false nature of Trump's comments, the damage remained in the hateful sentiments and those who would trust Trump's comments over the facts in this situation. It is an unfortunate show of creating hypothetical issues to distract from discussing policies and only having so-called "concepts of a plan."
On Harris' end, she could have stood her ground in her competency over Trump by not purposefully goading him into tangents on the size of crowds at his rallies. When former President Barack Obama did so at the Democratic National Convention in a comical way, it made sense to show Trump's incompetence. When comedians or late-night hosts comment on it, it makes sense because it is funny how much he needs to emphasize that his rallies have a large number of people.
The debate stage should be the last place where this takes precedence over actual policy issues. I could count on one hand the number of undecided voters that would choose Harris over Trump solely based on his obsession with rally sizes. She brought up rallies purposefully, and, interestingly, he took the bait. But given that the debate lasted only 90 minutes, it was a misuse of the time.
For Harris, competency cannot be a strength if it depends on her opponent's show of incompetence. Seizing an opportunity by creating it yourself is not as clever as it may seem.
The recent debate calls into question what it means for a candidate to present themself as the best choice to lead the U.S. It makes the public think about what matters more to the candidates: their policies or a spectacle to garner attention.
Both sides made a clear attempt to create a moment that could go viral. While there is an expectation that each would put down the other or gain favor through sensationalizing events when pitted against one another, I find it shocking that the candidates had to use these tricks even with an expectedly close race. Sensation took precedence over policy.
Any policy or anything they claim to stand for is instantly cheapened by their inability to let those policies and beliefs stand for themselves. A debate should allow the public to learn about the candidates and put their policies to the test against criticism, not whatever this was.
The American people deserve better than a predictable, poorly executed display. The American people deserve to be treated intelligently rather than be given a spectacle-like match where the opponents care more about tearing each other down and proving they are better than the other guy.
Sehar Malik is a junior in the School of Arts and Sciences majoring in Molecular Biology and Biochemistry and minoring in French. Malik’s column, “People Talking,” runs on alternate Mondays.
Columns, cartoons, letters and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the views of the Targum Publishing Company or its staff.
YOUR VOICE | The Daily Targum welcomes submissions from all readers. Letters to the editor must be between 350 and 600 words. Commentaries must be between 600 and 900 words. All authors must include their name, phone number, class year and college affiliation or department to be considered for publication. Please submit via email to oped@dailytargum.com and eic@dailytargum.com to be considered for publication.
