Searching for Leadership - The Trump-Harris Debate

The debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris was another disappointment for those seeking true leadership capable of inspiring and uniting the American people. It served as a reminder of how much importance we’ve placed on the presidency while simultaneously lowering the standard for candidates. Both Trump and Harris once again demonstrated mediocrity. Trump stuck to his predictable pattern of exaggeration without substance, while Harris excelled at playing her role, but lacked meaningful content.

Trump was, as expected, unable to deviate from his usual script. His inability to adapt or take advice was clear. This debate marked his second chance to "seal the deal," the first being his meandering 90-minute speech at the Republican National Convention. Those who had hoped for a change or an awakening after his near-death experience were let down.

Harris, while more of an unknown, also stayed true to form. In a controlled setting, she’s effective, and during the debate, she followed a clear strategy: take the initiative, shake Trump’s hand to unsettle him, and keep him on defense. She executed this plan well, forcing Trump to defend himself throughout. She aimed straight at his ego, successfully goading him by suggesting his rally attendees often leave early due to boredom.

Harris dodged many of the moderators’ questions, focusing instead on presenting herself as a reasonable moderate while keeping the heat on Trump. Her goal wasn’t to better inform the public about who she is what she will accomplish but to define her opponent while avoiding harm herself. Trump tried to expose her past and present inconsistencies, but his points were lost in his usual rambling. Harris, on the other hand, maintained the image she wanted to project rather than revealing her true beliefs and acting as though she were the challenger to an incumbent. Even Bernie Sanders recently admitted that she’s a solid progressive, only backpedaling to win the election.

The ABC moderators covered a broad range of topics but stumbled by fact-checking Trump extensively while overlooking Harris’s false claims. Moderators should stay out of this tangled web. Trump’s supporters, upset by this bias, should blame Trump and his team for not having anticipated the obvious and preparing accordingly instead of complaining afterward. Complaints only signal weakness.

Most viewers of the debate were entrenched partisans, watching to see their side score points. Harris will solidify her base, while Trump’s base support has likely hit its ceiling. This could help Harris drive turnout, especially after the lack of enthusiasm for Biden.

But what really matters is how undecided voters in key battleground states were affected. Though small in number, they will determine the election outcome. Trump needed to speak directly to them but instead treated the debate like one of his rallies, missing the moment to stay on message. He could have won over disillusioned Nikki Haley supporters by humbly addressing their concerns, but his pride prevents him from doing so.

Harris had more to gain. Undecided voters weren’t necessarily looking for policy specifics; they wanted to see if Harris was competent and rational. She dispelled fears of being unfit for office, likely giving some undecided voters the green light to support her.

We often exaggerate the importance of these debates—it’s like one game in a long season, but a crucial one. Harris did enough to reassure some undecided voters, and a slight polling bounce could follow, though it’s unclear if it will make a significant difference.

Back to the title of this post—Searching for Leadership. Neither candidate offers the leadership that can inspire or unite us. Instead, we face another four years of division and strife, no matter who wins. America is desperate for a president who speaks truthfully about our shared heritage, who can outline a vision for peace and prosperity, and who humbly asks for our help in this endeavor. We need someone who can transcend the empty rhetoric and partisan squabbles and inspire us to work toward the common good. But that leader is nowhere to be found. The search continues, and so does our frustration—lost in a political system that no longer serves the people, but rather perpetuates the divisions it should heal.

****

SHARING: Please consider sharing these blog posts via social media or email if you find them interesting by providing a link to either https://www.libertytakeseffort.com or https://libertytakeseffort.substack.com
DISTRIBUTION: Liberty Takes Effort shifted its distribution from social media to email delivery via Substack as a Newsletter. If you would like to receive distribution, please email me at libertytakeseffort@gmail.com To see archived blog posts since 2014 visit www.libertytakeseffort.com.
DISCLAIMER: The entire content of this website and newsletter are based solely upon the opinions and thoughts of the author unless otherwise noted. It is not considered advice for action by readers in any realm of human activity. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to readers to further inform the public square. Use of any information on this site is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.

The Basement Strategy

 In the 2020 presidential election, Joe Biden successfully defeated Donald Trump by employing what is called the "Basement Strategy." This approach was developed by the Biden campaign to keep their candidate away from unscripted public events. Their knowledge then that Biden's cognitive abilities were in decline drove the strategy. Instead of frequent unscripted public appearances, the campaign relied on a compliant media, which was largely opposed to Trump, to overlook Biden's limited visibility. This strategy proved effective, culminating in Biden's victory.

However, once Biden assumed office, the signs of his cognitive decline became increasingly apparent. His public appearances were marked by moments that raised eyebrows and could not be concealed - falling while climbing steps, a stiffened gait, calling his vice president the president, misnaming foreign leaders, and unscripted comments that often bordered on incoherent. Even in scripted events the President would often read parenthetical instructions from the teleprompter and, despite detailed instructions and prompts from his staff, he would often wander aimlessly around the stage, requiring intervention by his wife or in one highly visible instance, former President Barrack Obama.

Comedians and social media memes joked about the obvious physical and cognitive decline of the President, but it was all waved off by his staff and fellow party leaders in Congress and elsewhere. The mainstream media ignored it. It was clearly getting worse as time went on, but that decline was predictable. The limited daily calendars did not appear suddenly in the third year of the Biden term – they were the standard during his 2020 campaign. It was covered up by officialdom and the press because they could not bear the thought of Biden losing reelection to Donald Trump in 2024 or face the possibility of asserting the 25^th Amendment and replacing Biden with Vice President Kamala Harris, whom they thought incompetent, unlikeable, and unelectable.

By the third year of his term, Biden's cognitive decline was undeniable, especially during critical public moments. In a reelection debate in June, his mannerisms and speech reflected those of an elderly man struggling with significant cognitive issues, leading to widespread concern about his ability to continue leading the nation. His decline apparent to all, Democratic Party leaders panicked and were forced to act, maneuvering to replace Biden as the party's nominee, despite his resistance. The charade they had carefully maintained for three years, with the tacit support of the media, was coming to an end.

The Democratic Party then shifted its focus to Vice President Kamala Harris, aiming to install her as the new nominee before the upcoming Democratic Party Convention in August. This move was calculated as the best path to defeating Donald Trump in the upcoming election despite years of concern about Harris as a candidate. A competitive and open process was thought too risky and could turn the convention chaotic.

To overcome Harris’s shortcomings, the Party would rely on the “Basement Strategy” once more.  They would use the strategy that fooled the American voting public in 2020 once again, not because of Harris’s age or cognitive decline, but due to her own unique set of liabilities. Harris has a track record of failure and extreme difficulty in unscripted public encounters, making transparency a high risk for her campaign. In her 2020 Democratic Primary campaign she was early to leave the race due to a failed campaign organization, erratic policy preferences, the inability to attract donors, and a poor performance in the first primary debate.

In the twenty-five days since Harris was proclaimed the new nominee, she has not held a single press conference or interview with an inquiring press. In a brief tarmac encounter, she mentioned that her campaign is working to arrange an interview "by the end of the month"—a comment made on August 10th. She has agreed to only one debate on September 10th, while Trump has agreed to three. Early voting begins in some states on September 16^th. The hope is to run out the clock until at least then.

The mainstream media, as in 2020 and continuing its opposition to Trump, has supported this strategy. A recent Washington Post Opinion headline sums up the mainstream media position:  As Harris learned from Biden, avoiding interviews is good strategy; Kamala Harris is paying no price for ducking reporters and not holding news conferences.

The Democratic Party and the Harris campaign are attempting to craft an image of their candidate through carefully scripted public appearances and campaign advertising, while denying the American public the opportunity to see who Harris truly is, what she stands for, or how she might handle a challenging, unscripted environment. Why is this important? Because it will help to indicate how she may perform when she sits across from her counterparts if elected president. Word salads, platitudes, and discomforting laughter may not be what the American voting public envisions for their president when he/she sits across from the likes of Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping.

This election strategy may be successful, but it is potentially dangerous. A candidate of mediocre intelligence, limited accomplishment, and an inability to communicate effectively (this is how her own party looked at Harris until the crisis) is being hidden from the public. The same strategy that elected Joe Biden has left the United States with a president who, instead of actively leading the nation, is spending his final months in office on a Delaware beach, disengaged from the pressing issues of the day. Meanwhile, the world teeters on the brink of conflict, with escalating tensions in the Middle East and Ukraine.

The American voting public deserves transparency from their leaders. The masquerade must end, and the press must do its job—insisting on unscripted public events and genuine scrutiny of the Democratic nominee. If this charade is allowed to succeed again the country may well face a failure of leadership and competence for the next four years that not only results in poor policy but may endanger national security.

*****

SHARING: Please consider sharing these blog posts via social media or email if you find them interesting by providing a link to either https://www.libertytakeseffort.com or https://libertytakeseffort.substack.com

DISTRIBUTION: Liberty Takes Effort shifted its distribution from social media to email delivery via Substack as a Newsletter. If you would like to receive distribution, please email me at libertytakeseffort@gmail.com To see archived blog posts since 2014 visit www.libertytakeseffort.com.

DISCLAIMER: The entire content of this website and newsletter are based solely upon the opinions and thoughts of the author unless otherwise noted. It is not considered advice for action by readers in any realm of human activity. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to readers to further inform the public square. Use of any information on this site is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.

Memorial Day - what happened to the parades and walks in cemeteries?

This Memorial Day post is an annual distribution. It seems as the years go by and more friends and family pass that important traditions of the past fade further from the culture. Please share this post on Facebook and other vehicles with your friends and family to remind them of the importance of such solemn traditions. Thank you

I vividly recall from my childhood the prominence of Memorial Day among the pantheon of holidays.  It was one of the two big civic holidays.  The other being the Fourth of July.  At a young age I could sense the difference between the two – one celebratory and one solemn.  Memorial Day is larger in my memory.  The holiday was specifically to remember the dead of war, but the event was broader in that it was also an opportunity to visit and reflect more generally on relatives and friends who had passed.  It also related to the continuation of a tradition that emerged in the mid-1800s that made cemeteries places for peaceful meditation with nature’s beauty and communing with one’s family and friends – both living and dead.  As can be said of many traditions – times have changed.

Stop smartphones and social media from harming children

I write this blog post as a plea, to parents with children and young people who anticipate having children. Smartphones and social media are addictive technologies that are damaging the development of children’s brains.  I beg you to inform yourselves about this topic and take action to address the problem in your homes and schools. Your children’s future may depend on it.

I first became aware of the threat to children from these technologies when I watched The Social Dilemma on Netflix four years ago. This documentary explored the dangerous human impact of social networking. The code developers who created social media and related algorithms discuss their creations and regret. The information contained in the documentary caused me to cancel all of my social media accounts. I recommend you watch it.

The Biological and Psychological Foundations of our Division

Our nation is in an intense political and cultural struggle where neither side can emerge as an unequivocal victor. Internal strife leaves us vulnerable to external threats from those aspiring to replace our global dominance. Understanding the deeper underlying forces at work as we grapple with the political tension may help forge a way forward. In my reading and research to understand our division better two books stood out to provide a compelling lens to understand the deepening polarization rooted in the fabric of our minds.

Jonathan Haidt’s, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion provides a study of the profound disparities in the political values of liberal and conservative-leaning individuals. As a summary, I recommend this twenty-minute video TED Talk by Haidt: “The moral roots of liberals and conservatives.”

I previously wrote the blog post, “Isour political division biological?” about Oxford scholar Iain McGilchrist’s book, The Master and his Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World. The book offers warnings about the collective potential of the divided brain to destroy civilizations. As a summary, I recommend this twelve-minute animated summary of McGilchrist’s ideas: The Divided Brain.

The opportunity after the Gaza War

The brutal attack by Hamas on Israel on October 7, 2023, presents a challenging situation. However, it may have unforeseen consequences, such as weakening Iran's influence, potentially leading to a change in leadership in Gaza, and creating a more favorable political environment for peace and prosperity in the region, including for Palestinians.

Hamas's attack on Israel can be seen as an attempt by Iran, using one of its proxies, to disrupt the progress and success of the Abraham Accords. These Accords offer modernization, economic prosperity, and peace to a region that has been plagued by bitter conflicts with no hope of resolution for decades.

Iran's opposition to the Accords is driven by its desire for regional hegemony. Iran is a theocracy governed by totalitarian mullahs, leading a population of 90 million people with the intent to remove the U.S. presence from the Middle East and dominate its Sunni Muslim neighbors. Their leaders aspire to “restore a sense of “greatness” reminiscent of ancient Persian empires.” Iran uses proxies across the region to pursue its strategic goals with plausible deniability.

Contrary to the outcry from Hamas supporters worldwide and distorted intersectional views on U.S. college campuses, the attack was not about a continuing cycle of violence or a righteous anti-colonial struggle of the oppressed. Its purpose was to prevent the Abraham Accords from uniting Israel and Sunni Muslim states in the Middle East.

A Republican Unity Ticket to Challenge Trump

Former President Donald Trump currently holds a commanding lead as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in the 2024 Presidential Election. His lead has consistently grown despite facing several indictments. None of his opponents has managed to surpass the 20% mark in national polls or in early caucus/primary states since July. To disrupt this trend and challenge Trump more effectively, a major shift in strategy is required by his challengers.

One potential approach is for the competing candidates to cease vying for second place and instead form a team. This team would identify a president-vice president partnership from within their ranks and select cabinet members from the remaining candidates. The goal would be to work together as a cohesive unit focused on unseating Trump as the primary front-runner.