The Trump vs. Harris Debate: Test of Character and Perils of Personalization

The campaigns of former Republican President Donald Trump and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris are intensifying. Personalities and domestic issues—particularly the economy—and unwavering loyalty to Israel are taking centre stage. While China, though monitoring the situation, has refrained from directly intervening in the election in an obvious or confrontational manner, Russia has joined the fray, with President Vladimir Putin mocking Kamala Harris's famous laugh while somehow expressing support for her. This comes amid the ongoing Biden-Harris administration's battle against Putin, accompanied by reciprocal media restrictions and U.S. accusations of Russian interference in the presidential election.

Yet, these factors remain relatively secondary for the American voter. Next Tuesday, September 10, will be far more significant than any involvement from Russia, China, Iran, or any other issue or conflict. On this day, the first debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris will take place in the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania. Here, the contours of the election will become clearer as we move closer to November 5. Polls will play their curious role, but ultimately, the night of the vote count will alone be the arbiter of the results.

Some Democrats are calling on long-standing Republicans to endorse Kamala Harris, believing she represents an opportunity for the party to rid itself of Donald Trump and Trumpism. They argue that Harris must win by a significant margin to prevent Trump from contesting the results or undermining the democratic process. According to this viewpoint, it is in the Republican Party’s interest to free itself from Trump in order to regain its pre-Trump influence and power in Congress, with Harris the means to that end.

Liz Cheney, daughter of Bush-era Vice President Dick Cheney, a Republican and arch-neocon, recently announced her support for Kamala Harris. Cheney is widely known for her opposition to Trump, drawing both support and disdain from Republicans—some align with her stance, while others view her as detrimental to the party and a product of her father, especially given she was among the hawks who pushed for the invasion, occupation, and partition of Iraq. Notably, current Democratic President Joe Biden was also part of the camp advocating for the partition of Iraq, even penning an article to elaborate on these views.

But Iraq no longer occupies the spotlight in presidential campaigns it once did. After its disarmament through unprecedented sanctions, its devastation in war, and subsequent occupation, Americans are now divided between those who regret supporting the Iraq War and those who deny ever backing it—particularly among politicians and the media. Today, Iraq is largely forgotten, except by a few decision-makers who recognize that it was the United States that handed Iraq over to Iran.

Libya shares a similar fate. Former Democratic President Barack Obama once took pride in not only toppling Muammar Gaddafi but also the entire country through partition and empowering the Muslim Brotherhood, a group Obama favoured, in Libya, Egypt, Turkey, and Syria. Obama never abandoned the Islamic Republic of Iran, which had benefited from Republican administrations before his tenure. Obama supported both Shia fundamentalism in Iran and Sunni fundamentalism in Turkey and the Arab world, taking a leaf from U.S. policy book toward Iran and Afghanistan in 1979.

Whether with the deep state, the party in the White House, or the president’s character, America’s reputation has often been one of abandoning allies and leaving them stranded. Indeed, U.S. policies are not always solely based on strategic interests but they also involve direct intervention either to topple governments or to empower dangerous religious ideologies like Iran’s regime or those that emerged from U.S.-backed Afghan militants, which gave birth to al-Qaeda, or Iraq’s war, which led to the destructive rise of ISIS.

The average American voter neither remembers nor likely knows about these critical matters, primarily because they don’t care, and because much of the American media—aside from a few notable exceptions—is superficial, lazy, self-serving, and biased when ethical journalism, by definition, should remain as neutral as possible in pursuit of objectivity.

When the exchange of accusations between the U.S. and Russia extends to targeting media outlets and individuals for their opinions, using the pretext of non-interference in the U.S. presidential election, it becomes both laughable and concerning.

Much of the U.S. mainstream media stands with Kamala Harris, not out of support for her policies but primarily because they oppose Donald Trump, considering him harmful to the country. Trump’s relationship with major American journalists was once one of mutual admiration, but it quickly soured, and they became his harshest critics. Not long ago, many of those now championing Kamala Harris were criticizing her, echoing Trump’s claims that she is a dithering, dull figure lacking the basic qualities of leadership and intelligence.

How traditional, digital, and social media handle this historic debate—which follows the catastrophic debate between Trump and then-Democratic candidate Joe Biden, leading to Biden’s withdrawal and paving the way for Harris—will largely depend on performance.

Policies, of course, are important, especially if one candidate presents new proposals to address domestic issues first and foreign policy second. However, what American viewers will be most focused on is performance. Harris’s performance will be scrutinized as she is new to the debate stage, while Trump will attempt to undermine her at every opportunity, portraying her as unfit for leadership. Conversely, Trump’s performance may veer into dangerous territory, potentially exposing him to accusations of racism, arrogance, and condescension—both toward Harris and, by extension, women in general.

Both candidates have prepared extensively for the debate. Harris has been coached by a team led by former Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s advisor Karen Dunn. Reports indicate that she has spent five days strategizing with her advisors and preparing key points. Trump, on the other hand, may not follow the traditional debate preparation process, but his senior advisors and Republican Party strategists are urging him to avoid personal attacks on Harris and focus instead on highlighting her weaknesses.

Trump has hinted at new proposals to end the Russia-Ukraine war, but he will likely address the issue with caution to avoid appearing pro-Russian to the American public. While dissatisfaction exists with the significant U.S. support for Ukraine against Russia, this does not negate the widespread anger at Putin’s war on Ukraine.

Harris will likely attack Trump, accusing him of being friendly with dictators like Putin, and will boast of the Biden-Harris administration’s success in strengthening NATO’s ties to counter Russia.

Trump will repeat his claim that if he had been in power, neither the Ukraine war nor the Gaza war would have erupted. He will present himself as the candidate with a roadmap to end the Ukraine conflict, likely proposing a deal to prevent Ukraine’s NATO membership while finding a solution that balances Ukraine’s territorial integrity with the identity of Russian-controlled areas that Moscow insists must remain under its control.

On the issue of Israel and its war on Gaza, both candidates will compete to prove their loyalty and military and financial support for Israel, accusing the other of failing to support the Israelis adequately while vying for both the Jewish vote and the considerable influence of the Jewish community in the election. Both candidates will likely condemn Hamas for its actions on October 7 and pledge to eliminate "Hamas terrorism."

Harris may reaffirm her commitment to Palestinian self-determination and dignity while acknowledging the heavy toll on Palestinian civilians. Trump, meanwhile, will likely promise to continue the Abraham Accords and may focus exclusively on empowering Israel to finish the job and eliminate Hamas, as it sees fit. Trump is unlikely to commit to a two-state solution, and while Harris may avoid proactively endorsing it, she will reaffirm her commitment to the principle if asked.

America is practically abandoning the two-state solution, as it no longer challenges Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the issue, despite his government’s and a majority of Israelis’ rejection of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. The current discourse on the two-state solution has lost its original meaning, as the creation of a serious, viable Palestinian state has become a distant dream, and the world is not genuinely committed to it.

World leaders and their populations will watch and listen closely to the Trump-Harris debate with a real possibility of Harris winning the presidency, reversing what happened after Biden’s disastrous debate performance with Trump left him with zero chances of winning.

Harris is attempting to position herself as more adaptable and agile than Trump, who is nearly 18 years her senior. She has captured the attention of world leaders as some of the initial enthusiasm for Trump has waned. Harris seeks to present herself to the American public and the world as a candidate worthy of consideration on her own merits, independent of Biden. Meanwhile, Trump is warning them against Harris’s inexperience in international affairs and the dangers of her leadership.

If we examine Vladimir Putin’s tone when he said he supports Harris for president, we can see that he was only half-serious, mixing mockery with sincerity. But like China and other nations, Russia has begun crafting strategies based on the possibility of a Kamala Harris presidency.

The greatest gift Trump could give Harris during the debate, therefore, would be to underestimate her as a serious candidate.