FIRST 2020 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE OUTCOMES

Well, civility is politicis is dead. Call it people! September 29, 2020 at 8pm Central Standard Time. From constant interupting to politicians shushing each other or calling each other liars and clowns, it’s a mess out there. But we have a history of drama in politics so at the same time I don’t believe any of this to be a real surprise or historically new.

U.S. Politics has been full of drama from the start

We know how it’s done. While it is ugly and polls show people are irritated at politican shenanigans, we have a long history. Here is a scene from the film O Brother, Where Art Thou to remind us.

It would be more entertaining if life didn’t immitate art - immitating life.

Not Made in the U.S.A.

But we come by our shenanigans honestly. I don’t know that this will bring you any real peace, but have a look across the pond at how daily life in the British Parliament works:

It’s almost commical. Almost. I think some sheltered Americans (including myself in this category here a bit) might hope for something more civil and a bit more respectable, but honestly that is like asking for something that politics never really had.

I recall when growing up hearing about how southerners could be polite to your face while talking regularly behind your back in rude ways. Northerners were offended at the very notion of that, take New Yorkers for example. They would much prefer to swear right in your face while you walk away not caring. Politics personifies this reality.

Politics seems to waver between the two in the U.S. Our politicians like to level accusations of uncivil discourse, while calling people names in the next breath.

What we learned from the debate

My take-away from the debate were essentially the following:

Both Politicians

• They pretty much said what we expected them to say
• There was dog whistle behavior placating to the based of both major parties
• The candidates vilified each other, even on stuff where they were arguably similar in their actual political positioning
• They surprised us a few times in the nuance of what they were saying
• Event with dog whistling and pandering and placating, the basic notion seems to remain mostly true, “I would rather vote for X because they are more likely to handle Y in the way I would prefer.” Examples include: health insurance, environmental law, abortion, the economy, the pandemic, ideology on institutional racism, religious freedom, policing, justice, etc.
• At the end of the day, as is typically true, voting for Candidate X means enabling their political platform with regard to their political values, tactics, and approaches.

Trump Surprises

• Global Warming

  Trump talked as if he was in favor of clean air and water (no surprise there) but then shared notes about carbon reduction. I think back to George W. Bush who held a similar position, willing to activity support laws that protect escential environmental concerns (water polution, CFCs, mercury, etc.) while at the same time questioning the political agenda around Carbon taxes and political solutions that gave a pass to the largest world poluter on the planet, China. Trump did not go into enough detail to ensure anyone about how he did or did not support Anthropogenic Global Warming (for which there has always been a consensus, but never on the amount of contribution or it’s impact).

• Proud boys: stand back, stand by

  This will continue to be hotly debated. Does stand-back, and stand-by mean “stand-down and stop the violence” or does it mean “Hold until I give the orders”? We have an immediate explanation in the next thing Trump said. The debate point was not about Proud Boys, even though the moderator asked Trump to specifically call out the Proud Boys.It was about asking the potentially violent people in the politicians’ political bases to stop the violence and patiently give time for an independently verified election result.

• TRUMP: WHAT DO YOU WANT TO CALL THEM, GIVE ME A NAME?
• MODERATOR: WHITE SUPREMACISTS, WHITE SUPREMACISTS AND PROUD BOYS
• TRUMP: PROUD BOYS, STAND-BACK AND STAND-BY. BUT I’LL TELL YOU WHAT, I’LL TELL YOU WHAT. SOMEBODY’S GOT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT ANTIFA AND THE LEFT.

  I don’t really believe that the number of Proud Boys “events” come close to paralleling Antifa movements violence. All violence should be condemned, and while we might question what “stand-back and stand-by” means, it is a far more actionable request of Trump as compaired to the non-condemnation coming out of the Antifa movement (while I believe that Antifa is both an organization and a movement and the movement is larger than the organization - regardless of their organizational status, there is no reason to not condemn the unquestionable violence and destruction coming out of the movement). Calling Antifa “not an organization” is a dog whistle to the violent left to cover the ways they are generating public angst through violence. Biden never asked the violent members of his base to hold off on violence. He only dog whistled on the Antifa movement question using the strawman argument about “them not being an organization” (which has nothing to do with asking them to be patient and non-violent). We have to remember the framing of the question to Trump. The accusation stands that Biden is unwilling to ask the violent movements of the liberal base to stop. They both generically condemn the violence. So far Trump is the only one to ask the violence to stand-back and stand-by.

Biden Surprises

• Defund the Police: A few bad apples

  While Biden has been vocal during the election about favoring a version of “defunding the police” that supported moving funds to community policing, he never voiced agreement that the policing problem was about a few bad apples (something Trump said earlier and the press roasted him for it). In fact, from the Washington Post, to the Daily Kos, to BLM itself, liberal media and Democrat voices have made it clear that they believe the problem is not “a few bad apples.” In fact, it was a bit contradictory of Biden to explain that there is an institutional racism problem in policing, but follow that with the “few bad apples” perspective. It leads me to believe that he is “dog whistling” on institutional racism and will materially do what Trump has said and done on the issue (Trump signed an executive order to flag and promote information on policing abuses to federal level permanent public records so abusive police cannot be quietly “disaplined” by pushing them to a desk job and later reassigned to police abusively in another jurisdiction).There is virtually no oxygen between the action that Joe Biden said he would do, and the things Trump has already done… escept dog whistle by using popular terms while changing what he means when he says them

• Green New Deal - that is not my plan

  This one is super confusing too. Biden directly said the Green New Deal is not his plan and that “He is the Democrat party right now” in response to the idea that the DNC supports the Green New Deal. But immediately after than Biden said “The Green New Deal will pay for itself as we move forward” implying the plan would move forward under his administration. When the moderator then attempted to confirm, “So, you support the Green New Deal?” Biden doubled back again, “No I don’t support the Green New Deal … I support the Biden Plan.” So which is it? The Green New Deal will go forward under a Biden administration and pay for itself (which has been proven false) or he doesn’t support it and like with the issue of Police Funding it is another dog whistle to garner votes from the left while really meaning something different?