Michael Cohen, who has a tainted legal track record, including a conviction for tax evasion and lying to Congress, has decided to throw his hat into the political adviser ring. He has targeted his advisement towards Kamala Harris, the Democrat who secured nomination for the presidential race against Donald Trump. His recommendation, however, seems to stem more from a personal vendetta against the former president, rather than a genuine interest in the prosperity of the nation.
Cohen has a bone to pick with Trump, criticizing him for supposedly having a negative view of the United States. According to Cohen, Trump categorizes the nation as unintelligent, beleaguered with crime, suffering economically, and overrun with social ills – a markedly grim portrayal that stands in stark contrast to the statistical reality. For all Cohen’s theatrics, one could argue that he’s capitalizing on a caricature of Trump’s commentary rather than addressing accurate representations.
Cohen’s poor judgment continues to be on clear display as he fancies himself advice-giver-in-chief to vice president Kamala Harris. He supposes that he, with his tainted credibility, will offer the best strategy for Harris to engage in a debate against Trump. Cohen’s suggestion boils down to asking Trump which country he’d prefer over the United States—a rather shallow and devisive approach for a debate supposed to shed light on policy and progress.
Cohen seems to be under the impression that questioning Trump’s patriotism by asking him if he thinks there’s a ‘better’ country to live in is a slam-dunk. Unsurprisingly, Cohen misses the mark here. Not only is such a question irrelevant and petty, it completely misses the opportunity to critically engage on pertinent issues, potentially hindering a constructive political discourse.
If Cohen was hoping his comment would make a huge impact, he might be disappointed. To imply that any dissatisfaction with the United States is synonymous with wanting to abandon it displays neither depth in understanding nor skill in political strategy. It might, however, give a glimpse into the level of discourse the Democrats are willing to stoop to in their debates.
Despite repeated emphasis on his ‘zinger’, Cohen’s suggestion clearly falls short of intellectual rigour. ‘It’s a great question to ask him because there’s no answer that he could give that would be acceptable,’ proclaims Cohen. Such a statement throws further light onto the flawed strategy he has proposed, more interested in trap-laying than productive dialogue.
Cohen’s appearance at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) this week paints a skewed and rather disconcerting picture of the alliance he has formed behind Harris. One wonders whether Democrats are aware that Cohen’s endorsement might in fact be more of a liability than an advantage, particularly because of his criminal history.
Despite all the pomp and show, as Cohen indulges in the spotlight, Trump and Harris are set to meet on the debate stage. The scheduled event in Philadelphia, set to be hosted by ABC News, promises to be a strategic encounter. This is as long as it centres on the exchange of ideas and policies, not one filled with petty swipes as suggested by Cohen.
Excitement is in the air as the election cycle progresses. From the national perspective, aggregate polling appears to tilt in favor of Harris, stirring optimistic chatter among Democrats. However, that optimism should be tempered by the reality that the battleground states—decisive in determining the election—remain in a deadlock.
In an interesting turn of events, a survey by Navigator Research from July 31 to August 8, paints a surprising picture of the battleground states. Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin present a tug of war between Harris and Trump. Meanwhile, Trump retains a lead in Arizona and Pennsylvania.
As mired in controversy as it has been, Cohen’s involvement in the narrative and his advice to Harris offer an interesting snapshot into the Democratic strategy. It begs the question if the Democrats actually welcome such ill-advised attempts to derail political discourse while resorting to cheap tactics. It seems opting for intellectual engagement is not on the agenda, which is disheartening for those craving substantial political discussions.