I Do Not Believe You Are a Racist
The First 2020 Democratic Debate Part 2
“I do not believe you are a racist.” This line opened California Senator Kamala Harris’s masterful attack on former Vice President Joe Biden. In an incredible showdown between the two, Harris eviscerated Biden, the first time in this election cycle that Biden genuinely was forced into retreat.
Focused around the issue of race in America today and since the 1960s, the two candidates represented two eras: one who grew up during the integration of the school system two decades after Brown v. Board of Education, and the other who was already in government by that time, in part working to limit Brown’s reach. The dichotomy was striking and decisive, and Harris played the part of president better.
However, the debate did not become focused around attacking Biden or Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders after Harris’s rebuke of the vice president. Instead, the issue was avoided by essentially all of the other candidates for the remainder of the debate, the exception being Colorado Senator Michael Bennet’s brief tussles with Biden and Sanders and California Representative Eric Swalwell’s disagreement with Sanders on gun control, the latter of which Harris once again jumped in against a frontrunner, Bernie Sanders.
This refrain from confronting Biden and Sanders slightly played to their advantage, as they were implicitly set apart from the rest of the stage. However, it also helped those who did confront the frontrunners, especially Harris, as they proved they could match Biden and Sanders in policy and politics. Harris was the only one to pull this off in full mastery, setting her even farther apart from the nine other candidates on stage.
Harris began by establishing herself as a staunch progressive, her response to the question on income inequality being almost Elizabeth Warren-ish in its populist rhetoric. However, the first time Harris really joined the fray was when she concluded an extended period of interruptions between New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Swalwell, and a couple other candidates by saying, “America does not want to witness a food fight; they want to know how we’re going to put food on their table.”
This was definitely a smart move. It positioned Harris as a sensible candidate who is collected to the point that she just wants to get stuff done. In addition, it didn’t feel like a desperate gamble for a soundbite, though that’s obviously what it was. This moment became a turning point in the debate, from which point on Harris was the real MVP of the debate stage, her presence even greater than the frontrunners Biden and Sanders.
Harris was the clear winner of the debate last night, her powerful confrontation with Biden becoming the defining moment of the night. Through the rest of the debate as well, Harris conducted herself expertly. Though not as detail-oriented as some of the other candidates in terms of policy, through her stage presence, intent eye contact through the television screen, incredible ability to weave anecdotes and examples into her arguments, and powerful voice — her ideas were clear and persuasive.
Other Winners
Running up Harris was not Biden or Sanders but the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg. His debate performance was also excellent, providing well-constructed responses that integrated his own experience with persuasive policy proposals.
He didn’t struggle with — or dodge — any questions that were directed at him, and his average response was one of the best of the night. He was consistently effective and understandable, his overall performance being greater than any single part of it. He also spoke confidently and without any of the nervousness that Bennet and Andrew Yang came to signify.
At one point, he talked about the state of religious morality in the United States today, slamming and shaming the Republican Party for its fall from grace. He attacked the religious right in a way only he could do, by countering their example with his own sense of faith. This separated him from the pack: his arguments were unique on that stage, and it implied a degree of “electability” that didn’t detract from his surface-level appeal to Democrats. What was so incredible about that moment was that it showed what could be: a 37-year-old gay man in the White House who could attract Democrats, independants, and a few moderate Republicans.
Buttigieg was also fantastic in his response to the question regarding the recent police shooting of a black man, hitting all the key points he needed to and never wavering in his honesty and shame. The moment demanded him to feel some kind of guilt for the death of one of his constituents at the hands of his own police, and Buttigieg did show that guilt and that grief. Effectively, he was able to get through his greatest liability without being slogged down by other candidates’ attacks, at least for now.
The Frontrunners
Both Biden and Sanders did not do well during the debate. The biggest drag for them, to be completely honest, was generational. Biden became senator of Delaware in 1973 and Sanders became mayor of Burlington, Vermont, in 1981, Buttigieg was born in 1982, and Swalwell was born in 1980. Swalwell actually called Biden out on his age, talking about how he had watched Biden as a teenager and that had driven him to get into politics. Biden’s response was, “I’m still holding onto that torch.”
But Senator Biden, Vice President Biden, it’s time to let go. Your service to this country has been incredible, your career inescapably impactful, you are one of the giants of the Democratic Party, but it’s time to pass on that torch.
Last night, Biden never really got in his element. Yes, he had some strong points and he talked a lot (11 times, tying with Bernie for the most times spoken), he made his case effectively, and he masterfully proved his ideas were in the right by providing examples and supporting them further with stories from his life. But he lacked the kind of presidential gravity that Harris and, to some extent, Buttigieg had. He lacked an intense ambition that could penetrate the television cameras like Harris last night or Warren the night before.
Sanders was much the same. He did exactly what he did in 2016 in terms of policy and his overall drama, but this time it felt odd and out of place. It felt like it belonged four years ago, his rhetoric ignorant of the radical changes that have happened in America in the past three years. It’s not to say that his ideas are outdated, they’re not (if anything they’ve become more popular), it’s just that Sanders is no longer the candidate who is the best at selling those ideas. Harris, to a limited extent (she being the only other candidate last night who supports single-payer healthcare in its full force), and Warren to a great extent, are the real progressive standard-bearers, not Sanders.
The generational gap between Biden and Sanders and the rest was startling and genuine. Both those men began their careers when people didn’t care about gay rights, when a healthcare system was just an obscure dream in the minds of the progressive left, when climate change was barely a concern, when abortion rights had only just become a reality, when immigration from Vietnam, not Mexico, terrified Midwestern steel workers, when the Soviet Union was the greatest existential threat to American democracy, not partisan bickering and a lawless president. There is a degree of political baggage that comes from such a long career, something that those two candidates must realize take a toll.
This has been Carter Hanson’s review of the first 2020 Democratic Presidential Debates. I hope you enjoyed the both of the articles, and I’ll return with more political analysis soon. That being said, Carter out.
