Harris Fights Off Fox Grilling, but Polarised US Presidential Election Still Misses the Bigger Picture

With less than 20 days to go to the US elections, and the polls still indicating an effective tie, both Presidential candidates are ramping up efforts to reach out to undecided voters, particularly in the battleground states.

In Kamala Harris’s case, this has included taking part in more unscripted and harder-hitting media engagements, in response to accusations that she relies too much on teleprompters, or only interacts with sympathetic media outlets.

On Thursday, this involved Harris taking part in a thirty-minute interview with the right-leaning journalist, Brett Baier, on Fox News.

The interview was noticeably combative, as Baier repeatedly pressed the Vice President on the Biden administration’s record on sensitive topics such as immigration, and the Middle East, or confronted her with video clips of controversial policy positions she had previously supported.

He rudely interrupted her on many occasions, or tried to shut her down completely, when she tried to turn the conversation onto some of Donald Trump’s policies or character flaws.

For many viewers, the substance of what she said – largely repeating positions she has set out in previous high-profile engagements, such as during the Presidential debate with Trump in mid-September – was less important than the tone.

Despite Baier’s repeated attempts to bait her, which often verged on the disrespectful, Harris remained calm and collected. She insisted on being allowed to finish her remarks, pushed back on his misrepresentations of administration policies, and called him out for his selective representation of Trump positions.

For example, in one fiery exchange she accused Baier of downplaying the significance of Trump’s calls for violence, by showing a video clip which did not include Trump’s remarks expressing willingness to call out American troops to deal with “the enemy within”.

Trump’s full statement, which came when he was asked whether he thought election day would be peaceful, was: “I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within…We have some very bad people, some sick people, radical left lunatics. And it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military.”

Harris’s cool demeanour under fire came across in favourable contrast to Trump’s frequent resort to abuse of journalists, when they ask him “nasty questions”. She also impressed by her ability to speak in coherent sentences, unlike Trump, whose demeanour and language at campaign rallies has become increasingly surreal.

At one campaign rally last week, Trump actually gave up trying to speak at all, and instead just swayed and bopped to music for thirty minutes, to the utter bemusement of most attendees.

Many commentators on social media praised Harris after the interview for giving as good as she got from Baier, and said this proved she had the toughness and mettle to be an effective President and Commander-in-Chief.

Other viewers were more critical, pointing out that Harris repeatedly avoided answering direct questions, or deflected – for example, when she refused to answer Baier’s questions about why the administration had not done more to protect the border in its first three years, and instead talked about Trump’s role in blocking a more recent bipartisan immigration bill.

When asked if she still stood by her remarks a few years ago supporting transgender surgery for people in prison, she deflected to say she would uphold federal law on the matter, and noted that transgender treatment had taken place while Trump was President.

When challenged on when she had first become aware of Biden’s mental decline, she dodged by saying “Joe Biden is not on the ballot, Donald Trump is.”

One stand-out moment was prompted by some controversy over Harris saying in earlier interviews this week that she could not think of anything she would do differently from President Biden.

When asked if she still stood by this, Harris for the first time hinted at willingness to make a more forceful break from Biden. She said “my presidency will not be a continuation of Joe Biden’s presidency, and like every new president that comes into office, I will bring my life experiences, my professional experiences, and fresh and new ideas.”

She also declared herself open to ideas from Republicans, and highlighted some of her campaign policies that were new, such as offering tax relief for small businesses, and assistance for first-time homebuyers.

Nevertheless, she offered no significant policy differences from Biden.

To my mind, this was a missed opportunity. According to polling cited by Baier during the interview, 79% of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track. Biden is not a popular President. Voters are worried about the cost of living, immigration, and the sense that America has lost authority over world events.

Many voters seem undecided, because they are still not sure how a Harris Presidency will be different or better than what they’ve got now.

Many commentators also worry about the seemingly trivial nature of much of the campaign debate. For example, George Will in the Washington Post lamented “the US Presidential campaign is what reckless disregard looks like. Neither nominee has given any evidence of awareness of, let alone serious thinking, about the growing global conflagration.”

Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal excoriated the campaign debates for being “recklessly superficial” on the nation’s three greatest challenges – debt, entitlements and defence.

“Without the benefit of a national discussion amid the campaign, no consensus can emerge on what to do. America is headed for trouble on multiple fronts, and both Mr Harris and Mr Trump are whistling past the graveyard.”

Harris has succeeded in demonstrating her character fitness for office, but not yet convinced enough voters on her policies. Perhaps some voter hesitation may be due to underlying sexism or racism. But, it can’t all be explained away like that. It is also insulting to imply, as some commentators have done, that women, or people of colour should vote for her, purely on the basis of her sex or race.

By contrast, many voters deeply dislike Trump’s character. However, for many of them, the economy seemed stronger, and the world safer and more stable, when he was in office. For voters yearning for change, he may be a riskier, but also more attractive bet.

His challenge is that too much negative baggage is associated with him. Harris’s challenge is that not enough substance is associated with her.

In the end, perhaps it will come down to whether Trump alienates more voters than he attracts.

No matter what the outcome, I predict continuing voter disillusion and polarisation at home, and no quick fixes to America’s problems abroad. Other countries are going to have to step up.