Blog

Oct 17, 2024

Harris Reminds Us that “Temperament Is the Great Separator” | Washington Monthly

On Wednesday morning, I got a text from Jerry Rafshoon, who prepped Jimmy Carter for his debates in 1976 and 1980: “Have you ever seen a man castrated on television before?” Actually, I haven’t. But

On Wednesday morning, I got a text from Jerry Rafshoon, who prepped Jimmy Carter for his debates in 1976 and 1980:

“Have you ever seen a man castrated on television before?”

Actually, I haven’t. But among Kamala Harris’s many impressive accomplishments in the debate was that she did that heroic and hugely satisfying deed without stirring any of the misogynistic tropes (“castrating bitch”) that might have accompanied a less skillful performance.

From the moment she strode on stage and extended her hand to the cowardly germaphobe, she was wearing the pants—the Alpha Male and Big Swinging Dick, to use just two more of the hoary images favored by men of Rafshoon’s vintage. In retrospect, it’s hard to see how Harris could become the first woman president without first crushing this poor excuse for a man.

Remember the SNL skit, Quien es mas macho? It would never fly today because of its ethnic stereotypes. But the question is on the table for voters of all cultural backgrounds, and the answer Tuesday night was clear: It’s the lady who—unlike Margaret Thatcher or Angela Merkel—is not trying to be macho at all.

I’ve covered debates since 1984, and there are usually a few things to pick apart in even top-flight performances. This time, I realized it was like the aftermath of Harris’s fine acceptance speech in Chicago less than three weeks ago. Once again, I had no actual notes, other than that she should have answered the are-you-better-off-than-you-were-four-years-ago question by saying yes: Four years ago, we were at the depths of COVID. But that was like walking the first batter, then retiring the next 27 hitters in a row. Nailing the acceptance speech and then the debate was like Nolan Ryan or Max Scherzer pitching two no-hitters in one season.

Think about that for a minute: Here’s a politician who just two months ago was derided by Democrats as a supercilious coastal candidate who did little in the Senate and less in the vice presidency and would be the weakest candidate if Joe Biden stepped aside. Few had confidence in her ability to handle herself unscripted, much less command the stage. Now, she is on the threshold of being not just a giant killer and historic president but a smart, effective, and appealing leader for the 2020s.

My professor, the late political scientist Richard Neustadt, said, “Temperament is the great separator.” We already knew, as Harris said in the debate, that Trump does not have the temperament for the presidency and has “disgraced” himself, as she put it in a constitutionally graceful moment. But we didn’t know the ease, good cheer, and presidential temperament she would bring to the debate stage. That overall impression, more than any particular moment, could condition this contest in the weeks ahead.

Yes, Trump “took the bait,” according to all the analysts. But Harris knew how and where to throw the chum in the rough waters of Trump’s diseased mind, a task that was not as easy as she made it seem. It’s one thing for her advisers to suggest she mock his obsession with crowd sizes, another to figure out how to do it conversationally (by “inviting” viewers to his “boring” rallies). Through careful preparation and brilliant execution—her facial expressions in the split screen shots were Emmy-worthy—Harris set a new standard for wielding a scalpel with a smile.

And she managed to slip in appeals to essential constituencies, like the 800,000 Polish-Americans in Pennsylvania who don’t want Trump to give Putin the green light to attack Poland and the cohort of young black men unenthusiastic about Harris who might be surprised to learn that Trump wanted to execute the innocent Central Park Five.

The scary thing is that everything Harris did was necessary but not sufficient to win the presidency.

It’s rare to have a clear winner in a debate. But it’s also rare for a debate to determine the outcome of a presidential election.

So, while we should be thrilled by what happened in Philadelphia, don’t be surprised if the polls don’t change much. Or Harris might get a bounce that dissipates some in the weeks ahead. A CNN flash poll showed that voters thought Harris won the debate, 66-34. This was the exact margin that CNN said Trump enjoyed over Biden in the now-historic June 27 debate. But Trump got no bounce, and Biden went down only slightly in post-debate polls.

Lots of Democrats have a little Tom Sawyer in them. They want someone else to paint the fence. More than a few will now say, as Matt Drudge posted, that this is “The End” of Trump. It isn’t. This will still be a very close contest, and everyone who cares about this great but infuriating country has to ask themselves what they can do in the next eight weeks to get Harris elected. For some, it might be money; for others, using the call tools that make it easy to contact Democratic voters in battleground states.

My sense is that Trump will have to agree to Harris’s challenge that he takes part in the NBC News debate in October—or risk looking like a coward. It’s hard to imagine him performing quite so horribly in that face-off. That means a tight election, but one headed powerfully in the right direction.

Jonathan Alter, a contributing editor of the Washington Monthly, is a former senior editor and columnist at Newsweek, a filmmaker, journalist, political analyst, and the publisher of the Substack Old Goats with Jonathan Alter where this piece also appears. His most recent book is His Very Best: Jimmy Carter, a Life. He is the author of the forthcoming American Reckoning: Inside Trump's Trial--And My Own.