Wednesday, September 30, 2020

 #Debates2020

Regardless of your political affiliation, everyone can agree: the first Presidential Debate in the 2020 election cycle was a disaster. While both candidates engaged in personal attacks and exchanged heated words more befitting a playground than the world stage, President Trump's performance was by far the more aggressive of the night, and the more interesting to analyze along with this week's reading.

In my opinion, here are the President's top five worst moments from the 2020 Presidential Debate last night:

5. Trump claimed that no one has gotten sick at his rallies, after a member of his own campaign contracted COVID and died while campaigning for him.  

4. Trump blamed the California wildfires on California’s forest management strategies in order to deflect from his dangerous climate change policies.

3. Trump’s repeated use of racist and inflammatory language (“China virus” for COVID, “Pocahontas” for Elizabeth Warren).

2. “I don’t know Beau. I know Hunter.”—Trump interrupts Biden’s discussion of his late son Beau, a Bronze Star recipient, to attack Biden’s living son Hunter for his struggle with addiction. (The response to this is the best Biden moment of the night.)

1. “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.”

 Honorable mention goes to Trump lying about mail-in ballots being dumped in rivers, and bragging about bringing back football.

I found Trump’s refusal to denounce white supremacist terrorist groups confusing, but not surprising, and I was reminded of a passage in Crowley’s Toward a Civil Discourse that might allow us to unpack the motivations for the Trump campaign to so blatantly align themselves with white nationalists. Crowley states that “the social agenda that motivates the religious Right is of little interest to economic  conservatives, but their acquiescence to it was required in order to amalgamate a voter base that was not sufficiently extensive to elect conservatives to office” (6). There is no logical connection between fiscal conservatism and apocalyptist Christian values. Jesus never said, “Let there be tax breaks for the wealthy,” and women’s reproductive rights are of no concern to rich men who want to stay that way.

According to an Atlantic article released yesterday, entitled “Trump Secretly Mocks His Christian Supporters,” Trump has a tendency to “ridicule conservative religious leaders, dismiss various faith groups with cartoonish stereotypes, and deride certain rites and doctrines held sacred by many of the Americans who constitute his base” (Coppins). It seems that at least in the Trump administration, Crowley was absolutely right—apocalyptist Christians are viewed as pawns in Trump’s political game, not valued members of his constituency. Christian values are not Trump’s values, any more than Wall Street values are religious values.

What I find interesting is that many members of the religious Right appear to have understood this arrangement from the start. The morning before I cast my ballot in 2016, I visited a family member in her home. She was watching a religious program, and as the end of the program drew near, the televangelist reminded his audience to vote. “Remember,” he said, “you’re not electing a choir boy. You’re electing the president of the United States.” Evangelicals are under no illusions that Trump behaves in ways that align with their moral and social values--in short, they understand that a deal with Donald Trump is a deal with the devil, but the promise of a conservative Supreme Court was too tempting.

Trump has similarly aligned himself with racists and white nationalists. Donald Trump has a history of racism—his housing discrimination, attacks on the Central Park Five, and campaign rhetoric about Mexicans are a few examples that immediately spring to mind. However, I have to wonder whether enacting racist policy is Donald Trump’s goal, or whether this rhetoric is an attempt to galvanize another block of voters, whose interests are not religious or financial, but nationalist and white supremacist. There is, again, no logical connection between the religious Right, fiscal conservatives, and Proud Boys or the Ku Klux Klan. 

How did this faction of voters become such a critical part of Donald Trump's base? How are Christians and fiscal conservatives being persuaded to vote alongside these extremist groups? Are Donald Trump's racist remarks and policies politically motivated (to attract voters), financially motivated (to amass wealth), or something else? And just for fun, what was your worst 2020 Presidential Debate moment?



5 comments:

  1. Cameron,
    I appreciate your breakdown of the debate. Honestly, it was such a shit show. I felt like the debate itself was focusing more on destroying the opposition's character than of having any discussion of substance.It is disheartening to watch.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The worst debate moment? I'm guessing *gestures broadly* all of it isn't a fair enough answer?

    One of my favorite tweets of the evening sums up the worst moment for me:

    "Turns out three men talking at the same time is my least favorite sound" - @cd0yl3

    @WendiAarons had a great idea for the next debate:

    "Can Chris Wallace be replaced with a mom who's been home with her kids since March? #Debates2020"

    I promise I don't get all my news/opinions from twitter.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So it may be worth noting here that the Commission on Presidential Debates (a non-partisan body) has already said they will change the format of future debates, though no specifics on how yet.

    The Trump campaign's communications director, Tim Murtaugh, is crying foul: "President Trump was the dominant force and now Joe Biden is trying to work the refs. . . . They shouldn't be moving the goal posts and changing the rules in the middle of the game."

    Not sure this was a worst moment, but perhaps most comical: "Smart? Did you use the word 'smart'?"

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I actually was just about to post what Mike said, so while I'm losing that thunder, I do want to at least touch upon its intentions. I would think the idea here is to slow. the. hell. down. I would almost assume more words were uttered by all three (Wallace included) than any other debates I've seen, given the time frame. There is no time to think, create, or process. It's speed dating when neither date shuts up. Anyway, outside of a shock collar on each candidate, I don't know how else we will ever hear anything remotely useful, which is precisely what the media desires anyway. Truth is dying, and I'm really scared.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Twitter is a Special Place

Firstly, I apologize for my late response on our Digital Rhetorics unit in which I was assigned this post. I, for some reason, thought I had...