America's tear-jerking Presidential debate
Here in the UK, we are coming to the end of political debate season. Twice as many people tuned into political analysis shows (myself included) than actually watched the debates, by Alistair and Rory’s estimates yesterday. The Economist superfluously announced this week that they back Labour, which feels a little late considering they’ve been a shoe-in for the election for months. An audience member last night asked “are you two really the best we’ve got?” This sounds eerily like the state of the American elections, who held their first Presidential debate last night.
My eyes pricked with tears when I watched the debate highlight reel. I’m not even American.
Rather than arguing about who won the debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, the news headlines are calling this a loss for America. Countless articles detail Trump’s “verbal diarrhea” and Biden’s search for words, as they fired insults at each other with the impact of a BB gun pellet coated in bubble-wrap. It was sad to watch knowing one of these men will probably be the “Leader of the Free World” by the end of the year.
I am wary of ageist arguments against Biden, particularly when Trump is just a couple of years younger. He also has worked through a speech impediment for his entire life, so attacks on his stutter and word mistakes feel distasteful and misattributed to his age, especially with the US’s long record of electing Presidents with disabilities. However, it is increasingly difficult to ignore his frailty, right down to his muffled voice as he suffered from a cold during the debate.
Beyond age, the debate’s ability to discuss serious content was appalling. The airtime dedicated to their golfing handicaps was astonishing and I was baffled that we even had to hear the words “I didn’t have sex with a porn star.”
Trump is a convicted criminal, yet the US media seems to think it is fair game to draw a comparison to Biden’s child, when the President himself has not committed a crime. His criminality also does not disqualify him from running, but it is sufficient to deny millions of Americans the right to vote on account of their felonies.
When I talk to American friends, none of them are excited about the two candidates on offer. But when I ask them how we got to this point, it is unclear, at least on the Democrats side. Trump has a loyal band of followers that repeatedly crush his opposition in the Primaries, and he speaks to their concerns directly while enacting policies that benefit the rich (typically large campaign donors). Biden enjoys no such popular fealty.
He seems to be the presumptive nominee, at least until last night, because there is no one else with the national clout that could take on Trump and win. I’m not sure why the Democratic party has hollowed out its personalities under the age of 80, when voters don’t seem to want this. The VP, Kamala Harris, held such promise on election day, but she is almost sure to lose against Trump if she runs in Biden’s stead due to her unpopularity. There are popular names like Gavin Newsom or JB Pritzker who could run, but none of them have so large of a national profile as Trump’s, and they only have a few months with which to grow it.
People seem to care most about conflict and jobs protection, and climate and civil rights. Speculation about who will run for the Democratic ticket, so close to the election, is taking away focus from what the real issues are and what a Democratic candidate can do about them. Surely there is another candidate who can be the credible voice of reason on these issues against a man who cannot string sentences together properly. There has been speculation for years about whether Biden is too old to be the 2024 president. If the Democrats are going to change candidates, they obviously need to do it soon. If not, they need to shift the conversation away from age entirely and show they can deliver on what most Americans really want.