Let’s Be Honest About What Really Happened in That Debate

I have a confession to make: I can’t stand political debates. It’s not the issues — oh no, it’s the theater. The endless posturing, the pseudo-gladiatorial spectacle, and the sheer volume of words that amount to not much of anything. When my politically wonky friends invite me to debate watch parties, I politely decline. My go-to excuse is, “Sorry, I have other plans,” which usually involves not subjecting myself to the madness.

So, when ABC aired the much-anticipated debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump last week, I followed my usual routine: avoided the live show, waited for the transcript, and skimmed the analysis. Why suffer through it in real time when I can catch the highlights later, right?

Predictably, the pundits descended upon the scene like moths to a flame, offering hot takes, opinions, and “key takeaways.” The consensus? Harris “won,” Trump lied, and — oh yes — neither talked about policy, which had me scratching my head. Were we watching (or reading) the same debate?

The whole “light on policy” critique especially perplexed me. So, in true wonk form, I decided to take matters into my own hands. I pulled out the transcript, dusted off my Oxford dictionary, and looked up the definition of “policy.” To keep things simple, I went with this: a policy is a “course or principle of action adopted or proposed by an organization or individual.”

Armed with this incredibly basic definition, I set out to see if Harris and Trump actually discussed policy or if we were, once again, stuck in the land of make-believe.

Spoiler Alert: Harris Was All About Policy

Let’s start with the moderators, ABC’s David Muir and Linsey Davis. Now, I’ll give them credit for trying to corral Trump into coherence — no easy feat — but the questions weren’t exactly designed to elicit in-depth policy discussions. Most questions asked for “opinions” rather than action plans. That’s like asking a “Top Chef” contestant to describe their favorite dish instead of cooking one.

Still, despite the political theater that clogged the airwaves, Harris managed to serve up a feast of policy statements. According to my trusty definition, she made fourteen distinct policy declarations during the 90-minute debate. Yes, fourteen. That’s almost five every 30 minutes. And yet, the pundit class would have you believe she was just there to look pretty and sound angry.

Let’s break it down, shall we?

Six of her policy statements fell under what she calls her Opportunity Economy plan. For instance, she committed to extending the Child Tax Credit (a cool $6,000) and supporting a $50,000 tax deduction for small businesses and startups. She also spoke about the need to invest in technology, particularly in Artificial Intelligence and quantum computing — because, apparently, we live in the future now.

She didn’t just stop there. Harris mentioned her administration’s plans to create 800,000 jobs and support workers’ rights, and she proposed a $25,000 down payment assistance plan for first-time homebuyers. Not bad for someone accused of being “light on policy,” right?

And yes, she talked about immigration. (Let’s stop pretending like she didn’t.) Harris made it clear she’s ready to sign a bipartisan immigration bill that’s already in the works. If Trump was going to spend his time railing about border walls and caravans, she was going to focus on actual legislation.

And then there’s reproductive rights. Harris flat-out said she’d support reinstating Roe v. Wade. In contrast, Trump was happy to boast about how he helped overturn it — while somehow also claiming he supports IVF. Hmm...

Finally, Harris addressed energy policy. No, she’s not banning fracking, despite what her critics love to claim. In fact, she pointed out that she was the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which opened new leases for — you guessed it — fracking. Her position? Invest in diverse energy sources so we can stop depending on foreign oil.

At this point, she could’ve dropped the mic. But no, she kept going, touching on Social Security, Medicare, foreign policy, and elder care. Light on policy? Hardly.

Trump Did Talk Policy — Sort Of

Now, let’s talk about Trump. Did he discuss policy? Technically, yes. But it was more like wading through a fog of grievances to find a breadcrumb of substance.

He spent the bulk of his time doing what he does best — attacking immigrants and blaming them for everything short of lousy weather. But let’s be charitable for a moment. Trump did manage to cough up a few policy ideas, though most were as vague as they were grandiose.

He talked about imposing tariffs (again), cutting taxes for some unnamed group of people, and supporting states’ rights to ban abortion while claiming to support IVF. Healthcare? Well, he said he had “concepts of a plan.” That’s as close as we got to specifics.

Trump also bashed the Biden-Harris administration on energy policy while offering no coherent alternative. He vaguely promised to “settle” the war in the Middle East and end the Ukraine conflict. If only foreign policy were that simple.

The Real Problem: Drama Overshadows Substance

Look, I’m not here to pretend that debates aren’t theater. But can we stop acting like the candidates aren’t talking about real issues just because we’re too caught up in the drama to listen? Harris gave us policy after policy. If you missed them, that’s on you and the journalists who say they check the facts. The real question is who’s checking the checkers.

Trump? Well, you’ll need to dig a little deeper to find anything concrete. But it’s there — if you can sift through the bluster.

Next time, let’s try something radical: listen to what’s being said instead of getting lost in the spectacle.