Kamala Harris has crawled her way up from her initial political ventures in California to now, as she stands beside President Joe Biden. Her debate style leans on the side of harsh, yet cautiously planned. She juggles between trying to land catchy points and supporting them with seemingly convincing details, in an effort to concoct a more comprehensive narrative. Often during debates, one might observe Harris nodding in disagreement as her adversary speaks, hoping that viewers would catch her reaction on the split screen.
Harris further resorts to a method supposedly intended to steer the direction of the debates in her favor. She poses as thoughtful, stating that she’s ready to respond to a question, before she embarks on a convoluted explanation of an ever-changing position, or starts defending a previously held stance. As we head into the presidential debate this Tuesday, we will witness the harsh reality of Harris’ skills, as they will be subjected to an unparalleled examination.
This time, Harris will be up against former President Donald Trump, who has a strong track record in general election debates, dating back to 2016. The stakes are high, the stage will be set for millions of viewers as early voting commences across the country for the upcoming November elections. However, those who have either competed against Harris or coached her rivals allude to certain edge she brings to such combativeness, despite cautioning against Trump’s erratic and challenging demeanor. Trump’s arsenal includes the ability to fluidly switch between policy critiques, personal attacks, and a plethora of unproven theories or outright fallacies.
Charitably, Marc Short, who shouldered the responsibility of preparing former Republican Vice President Mike Pence for a debate against Harris in fall 2020, called her capable of ‘meeting the moment’. ‘She’s demonstrated her skills in various circumstances, I certainly wouldn’t undervalue that,’ Short commented. However, it’s equally important to remember the bias inherent in his role as a competitor.
Julian Castro, an old competitor of Harris from the 2020 Democratic primary, recounts Harris’s apparently deliberate mixture of ‘knowledge, elegance, and clear communication’ that helped her stand out in a crowded primary debate. Castro warns against getting too caught up in the attempt to craft attention-grabbing catchphrases or achieving viral fame. He applauds Harris for striking a balance, which most will agree is open to interpretation.
An anonymous former aide to Harris divulged that she sees these debates akin to a court trial or when she’s scrutinizing a judicial nominee during her tenure as a U.S Senator. The focus, according to the aide, has always been on winning the debate on substance. However, Harris’s strategy aims at growing a gallery of piecemeal viewers, leaving them with key messages without addressing the argument as a whole.
She seems to understand that the role of debates revolves not just around individual exchanges, but also in setting forth an image of leadership and style, according to Tim Hogan, who was responsible for Senator Amy Klobuchar’s 2020 primary debate preparation. This point shows us a glimpse into the contrived and image-focused nature of Harris’s debating strategy.
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor specializing in political communication at the University of Pennsylvania, claims that Harris employs deductive reasoning to weave them into a more expansive narrative, reminding one of how she would talk to a jury. This apparently involves presenting a hypothesis followed by facts. According to Jamieson, she exhibited these traits during the 2020 vice presidential debate, sharply criticizing Trump’s management of the COVID-19 pandemic and the economy.
In her most prominent 2019 primary debate, Harris lambasted Biden over his comments on institutional racism. She counterbalanced her critique of Biden’s record with her intimate story as a young, mixed-race student during the initial phase of school integration. She astutely punctuated her narrative with a now-famous quote: ‘That little girl was me,’ a clever point about court-ordered busing used for the integration of schools.
A noteworthy observation by Jamieson points out the rarity of candidates who are adept at both forms of communication: presenting an argument and adorning it with an impactful narrative. Perhaps Harris stands out in this regard, although one could question the sincerity of this approach. Castro vouched for Harris’s intuition for timing in debates, a trait he attributes to her experience working trials. During the 2019 primary candidates’ verbal onslaught, Harris patiently seized her chance to enter the conversation, grabbing the attention of the moderators.
During her face-off with Pence in 2020, the exchanges passed off as civil and meaning-filled, at least for the most part. Nevertheless, Harris didn’t miss the chance to portray Pence as a recurrent interrupter, much like Trump’s performance in his first debate with Biden. ‘Mr. Vice President, I’m speaking,’ was one of her sternly delivered lines, followed by another where she demanded to finish speaking so that a conversation could take place. While these moments may sound meaningful, they serve to illustrate Harris’s preoccupation with stage-managing her image.
However, debates have often pushed Harris onto the back foot. In the 2020 primary debates, Tulsi Gabbard, who endorsed Trump this year, attacked Harris over her overly aggressive history of prosecuting non-violent drug offenders during her tenure as a district attorney. In the same year, Pence’s stance abruptly forced Harris to face difficulty in defending Biden’s positions. Though Pence’s observations were not without merit, considering the tough choices Harris would be required to make on behalf of an administration whose record has been to say the least, dubious.
Presently, Harris will face the challenge of protecting not just Biden’s historical decisions, but also the part she played in it, as well as the policies she wishes to implement should she become president. Whether or not she succeeds in this is up for debate, and certainly open to interpretation. However, one must not forget one aspect of her apparent success in these debates: her seemingly careful craft of presentation and defense is just as manipulative and political as any seasoned politician.