Undebatable (September 13, 2024)
Welcome to Home & Away. Here at Home the week was mostly about the first—and if Donald Trump sticks to his word, only—debate between him and Vice President Kamala Harris. But the world doesn’t put itself on pause just because we Americans are preoccupied with ourselves, so there are a few other matters to discuss.
Let me say at the outset that I am a big fan of debating. As I observed from my daughter’s experience on the debate team, it can be a great tool for teaching not just the specific issue at hand but also research, critical thinking, and public speaking skills. I especially like those debates in which teams have to defend positions they may not agree with as that can open minds and build empathy. My friend and former colleague Bob Litan (of Robert’s Newsletter on Substack) even wrote a book about it: Resolved: Debate Can Revolutionize Education and Help Save Our Democracy.
Tuesday evening’s debate, though, while it was many things, was not a debate. It was more akin to parallel press conferences, as interaction between the two candidates was limited. I thought the two moderators, David Muir and Linsey Davis, did a good job with their questions. But I do not think they were right to fact check. That task should have been left to the candidates as the fact-checking the moderators did was inevitably uneven in its application. This fed into the narrative of Trump’s backers, and Trump himself, that the event was stacked against him. I also thought the two journalists erred by not adequately following up and repeating questions when they were largely avoided, which was often the case.
As has been widely noted, Vice President Harris dominated the evening. She succeeded in making it about Trump and in casting herself as the candidate of change, something critical at a populist moment such as this. While she didn’t definitively put to rest doubts about some of her positions and policy changes, the vice president demonstrated that she is more than ready to be president and that she would bring substantial capacity and a reassuring temperament to the Oval Office.
Trump on the other hand continued to raise serious doubts about his temperament and capacity alike. He also demonstrated a lack of discipline, consistently taking Harris’ bait. Indeed, if his closing remarks (in which he asked why the Biden-Harris administration had not done more to rein in inflation and close the border over the past three and a half years) had informed both his opening statement and everything in between, we would be having a very different conversation this week.
Trump did, however, provide some levity, albeit unintentionally. After ten years of attacking Obamacare and promising that he would replace it with something better, he declared that he now only has “concepts of a plan” for addressing healthcare. It is easy to imagine where this will lead. It will be close to 6 pm, and when I ask what time we are going to eat dinner and what we are having, I will be told not to worry—that those in the kitchen have concepts of a plan.
What I don’t know is how much the debate will affect voting. Trump’s base is remarkably inelastic as economists would say. But it is quite possible that the debate will influence some of those still undecided to vote for Harris and persuade a good many unregistered Americans to register and vote. Taylor Swift’s endorsement might reinforce this trend as well. And, as in years past, small numbers in a few swing states could well spell the difference.
Speaking of numbers, I see that close to 70 million Americans watched the debate. That is a lot, and considerably more than those who tuned in for June’s debate, but it’s still not great. That figure is less than half the number of Americans who voted in 2020, and less than a third of those eligible to vote this time around. We still have a ways to go if the goal is an informed, involved citizenry.
Home Meets Away
In the spirit of this weekly missive, let me say one more thing about the debate, namely, that there was a surprising amount of foreign policy raised and discussed, even if not substantively. Questions were asked about Afghanistan, Russia and Ukraine, and the Middle East. That said, the moderators should have asked each candidate how they would approach China, this country’s most consequential bilateral relationship.
I want to focus, though, on one question raised by David Muir. He asked Donald Trump, “Do you want Ukraine to win this war?” Trump never responded directly, saying only that he wants the costly war to stop.
There is much I could add about the preposterous aspects of Trump’s full comment, where he suggested that he could simply broker a peace deal. (That he says he could do so as president-elect is doubly preposterous given that he'd still be a private citizen and doing so would therefore be in violation of the Logan Act.) His statement (more a brag) exaggerates U.S. power and underestimates the potential of both protagonists to persist with the war at some level for their own reasons.
The real, and much more interesting, issue is what kind of deal he would pursue as president. Would he, as many fear, try to impose one on Ukraine by cutting off aid and essentially backing Putin's stance? Or would he continue to send aid to Ukraine and try to persuade both sides that further fighting would not yield benefits? The latter approach might yield results by 2026 if the goal were an interim ceasefire with modest territorial adjustments that required neither side to give up its long-term aims. But the danger given Trump's open admiration for Putin and antipathy toward Zelenskyy is that he might opt for the former, an imposed peace that would surely be rejected in Kyiv but would nonetheless cause real harm to both Ukraine and U.S. standing with allies everywhere.
As for a refusal to back Ukraine's winning, that begs the question of how winning or success is defined. There is a tension between what is desirable (a return to the 1991 borders) and what is achievable through military force. And while Trump's refusal to answer the question may have been revealing of his sympathies more than anything else, the question is worthy of a serious debate.
Unhappy Anniversary
This week also marked the 23rd anniversary of 9/11. As memory of that terrible day inevitably fades, we will want to make a point of both teaching it (and its lessons) and honoring the thousands of first responders and innocent men, women, and children, American and non-American alike, who lost their lives.
9/11 was costly, though, not just for its immediate impact but for the ways in which it shaped or, more accurately, distorted the context in which American foreign policy was made. It is interesting to contemplate whether the 2003 Iraq War ever would have happened had it not been for 9/11. I am not sure, but I tend to think not, as George W. Bush and several of those around him were motivated in no small part by a desire to drive home the message that America was not a pitiful, helpless giant unable to shape the world in ways it wanted.
And I am struck by how much has changed in the past two-plus decades. Yes, we still have terrorist groups to worry about, but increasingly foreign policy is about the threats posed by nation-states, by China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, as well as by global challenges, from disease to climate change. In many ways we are back to living in familiar history.
9/11 also provides some sobering lessons for those who think crises are the midwife of constructive, collective effort. Yes, the world and the country did initially come together, but it didn’t last long. Centrifugal forces quickly gained the upper hand both here and abroad. Or Home and Away.
End Game
I’ve been urged to end these newsletters on a lighter note and include more sports. So, I will, at least this week. The football season has barely begun but it is already effectively over for fans of the hapless New York (really New Jersey) Giants. The good news is that this development promises to free up valuable time and emotional energy.
Then there is my golf. This has been the summer of our discontent. My game got measurably worse. I am not sure why—lessons can do that to you by disrupting an imperfect but functional swing and leaving you with none—but it may be for other reasons, beginning with me. The good news is that my last few outings have shown improvement, so soon I may be paraphrasing the words of Gerald Ford, proclaiming my long personal nightmare is over.
Last but far from least is Caitlin Clark. She is a generational athlete who is transforming how her sport—women’s professional basketball—is seen by the public. Others who did this in their own ways were Arnold Palmer and later Tiger Woods in golf, Michael Jordan in men’s basketball, Babe Ruth in baseball, and Johnny Unitas in pro football. They may or may not have been the best to ever play their sport, but they were arguably the person who did the most to popularize it with the greater public. Caitlin Clark is doing just that. It is impossible not to be impressed by how she plays the game and how she handles herself on and off the court. The good news is that the Indiana Fever have made it into the post-season and we will have the opportunity to see more of her shooting and passing. Don’t miss it.
As always, some links to click on. And feel free to share Home & Away.
Richard Haass in the news
Monday, September 9: Morning Joe
Monday, September 9: World Today
Check out The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens