This week, I had the pleasure of sitting down for a cordial debate with Sam Harris, host of the "Making Sense" podcast, to discuss the question of the hour: Trump vs. Harris. The conversation was moderated by Bari Weiss of The Free Press. Sam is, of course, an incredibly intelligent person; he's also a person with a core set of values. He freely acknowledged his own discomfort with many of Kamala Harris' positions in the campaign. But in the end, he said that he would vote for Harris because of one dispositive argument: Donald Trump could not be president thanks to his antics surrounding Election 2020.
I took the opposing view.
While freely acknowledging that Trump's behavior between Nov. 4, 2020, and Jan. 6, 2021, was wrong, I argued that the Constitutional checks and balances had held and would continue to do so. What is more, I argued, Donald Trump should be elected because his presidency was far more successful for America than her vice presidency.
Under Trump, the economy boomed, inflation remained low, job growth was robust; under Trump, the border remained relatively calm and became increasingly so over time; under Trump, the Middle East was beginning to flower into actual peace thanks to the Abraham Accords and a contained Iran.
Under Harris, the economy had experienced the highest inflation rates in four decades; the border had been purposefully left wide-open, with at least 6.5 million illegal immigrants entering the country; Afghanistan had been handed over to the Taliban in the most cowardly and ignominious fashion possible, resulting in billions in lost military technology and 13 murdered American servicepeople; Iran had unleashed its proxies against Israel, beginning on Oct. 7, continuing through a wave of rocket fire from Lebanon via Hezbollah, and culminating in multiple Iranian attacks directly against Israel; the social fabric had been rent by intersectional wokeness, dividing Americans along racial and sexual lines; the federal government had been weaponized against political opposition and militarized on behalf of friends of the Democratic Party.
So, in short, Sam argued against Trump; I argued for Trump and against Harris.
You may notice an argument missing in this formulation: the argument for Kamala Harris.
That's because the argument doesn't exist.
You can argue against Trump; you can argue for him. But nobody can credibly argue in favor of Kamala Harris.
Not even Kamala Harris.
That's been the story of her campaign: what she's not. She's not Donald Trump. Fair enough. She's not Joe Biden. Fair enough. But she can't answer how she would be different from Biden, other than not physically being Joe Biden. She can't answer what she would do to improve the country; every time she's asked, she resembles a 10th-grader informed there's a pop quiz on a book she hasn't read.
And it is absolutely unclear whether Americans are willing to make Kamala Harris president just because they dislike Donald Trump. They tried that formula in 2020, and it resulted in the single worst presidency since Jimmy Carter's. It turns out that this time, the American people might want to hear a convincing affirmative case in favor of the Democratic candidate for president -- a candidate who, unlike Biden, did not win a single vote in the primaries, and who was shoehorned in at the last minute to prevent Biden's impending collapse in the polls.
Will Kamala Harris become president? If she does, it won't be because of Kamala Harris. She's a nothing, an empty vessel, a fresh coat of paint slapped on the beat-up jalopy of the Biden administration. And with the choice starkly before them, Americans might be able to answer the question between Trump and Harris quite simply:
Were you better off in 2019 than in 2024?
Join the conversation as a VIP Member