Kamala Harris Won The Debate, But It Was A Spectacle In Which Performance Overshadowed Policy

The first presidential debate of the 2024 cycle is complete and there is no question that Kamala Harris came out on top. No, that’s an understatement. If this were a boxing match, this was a round one knockout. If the debate were a Bounty commercial, Harris was the paper towel that wiped the floor, counters, and table with Trump. From the moment she confidently walked onto the stage to the end of Trump’s closing statement, Harris dominated. 

But that’s just it: American politics have devolved to such a spectacle that we celebrate complete sentences and zingers without digging into policy proposals or the pathways to actual implementation. Harris won the debate because she stayed on topic and remained composed but the substance of what she had to offer Americans wasn’t too exciting. She spent most of the debate cozying up to Republicans which left me — and many other progressives — wondering whether Harris winning the battle was more important than the war she should be fighting: winning the people who will vote for her.

I don’t say this as a stranger to politics; I know there is a game being played and that the expectations of Harris coming into this debate were high. It’s unfair that someone with her qualifications would even be measured against a man who speaks in run-ons and nonsense. In spite of Trump’s many attacks and tirades, Harris didn’t have the luxury of being able to fully fight back. Pollsters and pundits have magnified the fears voters have of a Black and South Asian woman in leadership so Harris couldn’t afford to come off as arrogant, angry, or defensive. She needed to appear prepared without being inaccessible; confident but not aggressive; commanding and more qualified than Trump while seemingly welcoming enough to those who previously supported him. 

The juggling act is a dizzying one that she handled with ease. But while Harris was busy navigating those land mines, she seemed to forget about the larger point of the debate. Not to provide memes for social media or fodder for commentators, but to connect with Americans about the issues and offer a path out of the mess. A path that they can believe in. Harris did a great job reminding Americans she is more rational than Trump, but we should aspire to more than sanity and civility. We deserve leadership that is more than inspirational and grounded in the urgency and pain people are feeling. 

MSNBC journalist and debate moderator David Muir asked Harris about illegal border crossings and new asylum restrictions implemented by the Biden-Harris administration. “The United States Congress, including some of the most conservative members of the United States Senate, came up with a border security bill which I supported,” Harris said. “That bill would have put 1,500 more border agents on the border.” I had hoped that this daughter of immigrants would separate herself from Biden and commit to a more humane way of supporting the families coming to the U.S. for the same opportunity that allowed her to stand on the stage. But, no, her performance required that she not appear soft on crime.

Donald Trump responded by insisting that Harris is letting in millions of immigrants and repeating debunked, racist myths about Haitian migrants eating cards and dogs. This will be the moment where Harris swiftly defends migrant communities and rejects the narrative that they are undeserving of dignity and a reasonable path to citizenship, I thought. Instead, Harris laughed in disbelief at Trump, called him extreme, and proceeded to tour her endorsements across the aisle. Outside of the moderator’s fact checking, Trump’s violent caricature of migrant people stood without objection. 

Of the endorsements that Harris was so proud to boast, no union leaders or community activists were named. No reports or testimonies from real Americans supported through Biden-Harris policies. In fact, the only endorsements that Harris chose to highlight during the debate were those from Republicans including former Vice President Cheney as well as Trump’s former chief of staff and secretary of defense. Harris was focused on doing what she was trained to do: convert Trump supporters and Republicans to her side. But in doing so, she is pushing progressives farther away. Is the performance worth the eroding credibility?

Throughout the debate, Harris’ perfect silk press and zingers were marred by her race to the middle. Trump accused Harris of wanting to ban fracking, a welcomed proposal by scientists and climate activists who have seen the consequences of fracking on air and water quality. Harris was quick to deny these claims and reiterate her support for oil and gas industries within a “diversified” energy system. Then Trump questioned Harris’ commitment to the second amendment and warned viewers that she planned to take away their guns. Mere hours after a live shooter incident at a Nebraska high school and only days after a deadly school shooting in Georgia, Harris completely missed the opportunity to decry gun violence and commit to regulation. “Tim Walz and I are both gun owners,” Harris clarified. “We're not taking anybody's guns away.”

The most painful part of the debate was the section on Israel-Palestine. Voters across the country have been decrying the disproportionate violence being enacted by the Israeli government against Palestinian civilians  in the months since the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7. The moderators asked about the more than 40,000 Palestinians who have been killed since October and what Harris would do to bring peace to the region. Just under 1,200 Israelis were killed and Harris painted a vivid picture of how Israelis were “slaughtered” and “horribly raped” before quickly glossing over the “innocent Palestinians [who] have been killed.” To be clear, the murder of any civilian is horrific and unjustifiable, but to the sparring presidential candidates, it seemed as if certain lives matter over others. Trump and Harris then went back and forth professing their love for and commitment to Israel with brief mentions of Palestinians as if their right to life and dignity was an afterthought. 

There was no discussion of an arms embargo or interrogation of how Harris plans to affirm a two-state solution when there is little accountability or repercussion for those enacting this war. No mention of Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, the American activist who was shot and killed by the IDF while protesting illegal settlements. No deep dive into the Uncommitted movement or millions of young people who cannot and will not turn a blind eye to the images of mourning Palestinians and tents under rubble.  

Kamala Harris is attempting to unite a divided nation but she can’t do it by forgetting the base who made her candidacy possible. Progressive voters pushed Biden out and demanded better than the two options previously before them. People from all backgrounds hopped on organizing calls within hours of her campaign launch raising millions from small dollar donors. We must reach new voters where they’re at without diluting the claim that the Democratic Party is committed to equity for all Americans. Widening the figurative tent can’t come at the expense of those who crave new leadership most, or we are doomed to repeat the 2016 election.  
I’m asking a lot of Harris because she’s asking a lot of us. Installing someone into a position of power like this should never be taken lightly. Being prepared for a pre-scheduled debate should be the norm, not a slam dunk. The bar should be high but institutionally we’ve seen media and politicians settle for more spectacle each election cycle. Contrary to what Trump believes, and what we’ve settled for over the last decade, candidates should have more than “concepts” to present to the people they are campaigning to. It’s time to make debates substantive again.