The definitive picture from final evening’s debate is a really particular split-screen view of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Within the left body, Trump is mid-monologue, lips pursed and gesticulating. Harris occupies the correct field, clearly watching her opponent. She’s leaning again ever so barely, her hand on her chin. On her face is one thing midway between a grimace and an incredulous smile—a facial features that many Harris supporters probably acknowledge as a common, exasperated response to a Trump rant.
It was a superb look. Whereas Trump seethed, Harris appeared amused. She supplied righteous indignation whereas attacking Trump’s place on abortion, his love for authoritarian strongmen, and his bald-faced lies about immigrant crime. She successfully baited Trump quite a few occasions—most memorably about crowd sizes at his rallies. All of this was rhetorically important by itself, and but, in some way, Harris appeared most withering and efficient within the moments when Trump was talking—the moments when she was capable of look throughout the stage and act virtually as an viewers barometer for Trump’s solutions. Crucially, Harris didn’t come off as livid or offended as she listened to Trump’s lies. As a substitute, she checked out ABC’s cameras the best way you would possibly take a look at your partner within the presence of an overserved relative who doesn’t notice he’s making a scene at Thanksgiving dinner.
“I’ve traveled the world as vice chairman of the US, and world leaders are laughing at Donald Trump,” Harris mentioned at one level. “I’ve talked with navy leaders, a few of whom labored with you, and so they say you’re a shame.” In one other second, she referenced his repeated election denial and prompt that maybe Trump was confused and lacked the temperament to carry the presidency. “The American folks deserve higher,” she mentioned.
What Harris’s physique language and forceful rhetoric have in widespread is that they diminish Trump, and achieve this in a fashion that succeeds the place different Trump opponents have failed. Harris is the primary candidate in a main or basic election to embody what appears like a “post-Trump” ethos. In different phrases, she’s the primary individual to run in opposition to the previous president who doesn’t deal with him as the middle of the U.S. political photo voltaic system. Reasonably than cave to his gravitational, attentional pull, Harris presents a distinct model of Trump: He’s not the solar; he’s the man who has overstayed his welcome at a celebration.
Particularly, Harris succeeds the place her predecessor failed. Joe Biden’s early marketing campaign fairly precisely positioned Trump as a grave menace to democracy and the political order. However doing so made the election completely about Trump and backed Democrats right into a nook the place their messaging and id had been centered on what they opposed, fairly than what they stood for. Though Biden is now not the nominee, his well-delivered speech on the Democratic Nationwide Conference embodied this grim ethos: Even whereas making the case for his profitable presidency, the speech was firmly located within the context of the existential menace of Trumpism. This, to some extent, is the technique that each one of Trump’s opponents has adopted, and for good motive: Trump is a mendacity, ranting, twice-impeached convicted felon who has repeatedly refused to just accept the outcomes of the 2020 election. He has promised {that a} second presidential time period can be a “bloody story,” referring to mass deportations. There may be each motive to take Trump’s reelection bid with the utmost seriousness.
Harris was capable of reckon with the darker components of a Trump presidency whereas additionally seizing on the basic absurdity of Trump as a candidate—normally together with her expressions and physique language. As a substitute of getting baited into Trump tangents—childishly arguing over golf prowess, for instance, as Biden did—she handled his digressions as unserious or unworthy. Harris’s facial expressions final evening made for straightforward memes and screenshots, however they’re additionally of a bit with Democrats’ most salient line of assault—that Republicans are “bizarre” and enmeshed in an especially on-line far-right universe of different info. The bizarre critique has caught for Harris and her operating mate, Tim Walz, exactly as a result of it’s dismissive of Republican speaking factors. As a substitute of pearl-clutching, it presents the MAGA arm of the get together as misplaced and out of contact. Harris’s incredulous split-screen appears throughout final evening’s debate had been, basically, the visible embodiment of that critique. Her fixed baiting all through the evening—calling Trump a shame and needling him concerning the measurement of his rallies—efficiently lured Trump into lengthy tangents which might be legible solely to these steeped in an prolonged universe of right-wing viral grievance.
As an illustration: Harris’s remark about crowd measurement despatched Trump on an 89-second rant about migrants stealing and consuming pets in Springfield, Ohio—a reference to a debunked, racist meme unfold by the MAGA trustworthy on-line and throughout conservative cable-news channels. As Trump delivered his deranged monologue, Harris laughed on the opposite facet of the display. When Trump completed, certainly one of ABC’s moderators, David Muir, famous that there had been no “credible reviews” of immigrants harming pets in Springfield. Caught flat-footed, Trump supplied a feeble rebuttal: “I’ve seen folks on tv!”
It’s unclear simply how a lot presidential debates matter, even in shut elections, although some proof means that they don’t change many citizens’ minds. Regardless, Harris’s efficiency managed to solid Trump as a dusty previous artifact—an enormous paradigm shift, as Trump has so completely saturated our collective consideration that he can really feel like an immovable object. Trumpism’s shock-and-awe method—the trolling, canine whistling, and fixed memes and tweets—has been absurd and threatening because the real-estate mogul rode down his golden escalator in 2015. However it has additionally usually felt ascendant—the early levels of a cynical, ceaselessly merciless, usually internet-powered faux-populist political mission. What Harris’s marketing campaign and debate fashion suggest, nonetheless, is a distinct view of Trump, not because the central determine in American politics however as a vestigial factor of a motion that’s so curdled by grievance and enmeshed in an alternate actuality that it’s changing into not simply culturally irrelevant, however one thing far worse: pitiable.