‘Let us go forth to lead the land we love . . . knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.” Those are the last words of John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address. To me they mean do your very best within your area to make things better.
My world has turned intense, yours too. Nobody knows what’s going to happen, everyone’s nervous, whatever latest information just showed a tick up or down, it’s neck and neck, and those who tell you to ignore the polls are right. Only later, when it doesn’t matter, will you know which ones were right. Meantime, in the aggregate, they instill a kind of fatalism. Still and always the great advice for those fully immersed in their times is in Robert Bolt’s screenplay of “Lawrence of Arabia”: “Nothing is written.” Today might change everything.
My anecdotal observation on the state of the race is this. Trump supporters are confident: They think they are more than half the country. Harris supporters are anxious: They fear they are less.
Yet since June political data men and women have told me everything will come down to each party’s ability to get out the vote, which means everything comes down to each party’s ground game. For weeks political observers have told me the Democrats have the advantage there. So that, and not the latest interview, could be the ballgame.
The other day someone said the campaign has reached its Oprah phase, where she’d have her big annual show and give gifts to everyone in the audience: “And you get a car, and you get a car!” Both candidates are promising to give money to whatever group whose love is immediately needed. This week Kamala Harris offered $20,000 forgivable loans for “Black entrepreneurs and others.”
Bloomberg editor in chief John Micklethwait brought the question to Donald Trump in their interview at the Chicago Economic Club. “You’re flooding the thing with giveaways,” Mr. Micklethwait charged bluntly. Mr. Trump, blithely: “But we’re going to grow.”
That charge and response haven’t changed in a century. It’s OK what we do, the money will always flood in endlessly!
We’ll get back to that in a moment and turn to another big interview this week, Kamala Harris on Fox News. Good for Fox—it got almost half an hour, it would be the first sustained grilling Ms. Harris faced since the campaign began, they’d have to get a lot in—and good for Ms. Harris for being game. Her campaign has clearly decided her safe-spaces strategy wasn’t working. She should have braved tough interviews months ago, she’d be a pro now. She should do more.
She was looking for a big moment—Kamala in the lion’s den facing down the foe. Anchor Bret Baier was looking to force her off her talking points and practiced answers to get to something deeper and more revealing. It was hot, sparky, fiery, she was sometimes defensive (immigration) and combative (on when she first observed a decline in Joe Biden’s mental acuity) but also scored points on the nature of Mr. Trump.
People will say it was too tough—Fox, partisan aggression. No. She is running for president, it is a tough job, she is a tough woman. It gave viewers a deeper sense of who she is. Mr. Baier showed himself, again, one of the great television news professionals of his generation.
Back to Messrs. Trump and Micklethwait. That interview too was smart and full of pushback. The subject was the economy, and you could see that whatever Mr. Trump’s economic policies are, economic issues are central to his thinking because he’s spent his life thinking about money. Mr. Micklethwait brought the courteous skepticism of the journalist who knows more economic history than his subject.
He quoted a survey of economists report: If you add up all the promises Mr. Trump is making, in terms of taxes and spending, it would add at least $7.5 trillion to the debt—and that’s twice as much as Ms. Harris’s promises. Why should business leaders trust you?
Mr. Trump: “We’re all about growth.” He’ll bring manufacturing back, protect U.S. companies with “strong tariffs.” He’ll put 100% or 200% tariffs on imports. Mr. Micklethwait pushed back. The impact of a tariff war would be “massive” since “40 million [American] jobs rely on trade.” Tariffs would push up costs and function “like a national sales tax” on U.S. consumers.
Trump’s response came down to “China thinks we’re a stupid country,” “I was always very good at mathematics,” and The Wall Street Journal has “been wrong on everything,” as has Mr. Micklethwait: “You’ve been wrong all your life on this stuff.”
In Trumpworld all debate, no matter how crucial, descends into ad hominem. And yet Mr. Trump was compelling. His stories, his anecdotes, have a constant subtext. World issues can be handled just by making Emmanuel Macron of France cry like a girl when you tell him you’re going to tax champagne. Kim Jong Un of North Korea is quieted by love letters. It’s all easy in Mr. Trump’s brain because it’s all personal, and his supporters hear this with relief. The world’s problems aren’t maddeningly complex, you just need the right application of personal force.
Some advice for Ms. Harris. If this is a close election and Mr. Trump loses he will likely reject the outcome. He won’t accept a result he doesn’t like, and he will likely push against democracy’s peaceful processes because he is angry and resentful and his feelings are hurt.
Ms. Harris should be describing all this more seriously, at greater length, with greater thoughtfulness. On Jan. 6 the Capitol was seized by an armed and angry crowd to stop a constitutionally mandated action. The president sat in his office and watched. Did he like what he saw? Why? That Constitution has kept us together for nearly 250 years, through thick and thin. He didn’t move quickly to protect it that day, and if he doesn’t accept the Nov. 5 outcome he will be failing to be protective again. If Ms. Harris thinks Mr. Trump is a danger to the Constitution then this is more than an election, it is a national emergency. In an emergency you put your own ideological purity and pride aside.
I don’t understand why Ms. Harris hasn’t made concessions to the moderates, Republicans and conservatives whose votes she needs. Why not tell them she knows their stands and views and is willing to concede to the need for a greater centrism, especially on issues where the political and cultural left have demanded too much and alienated regular Americans?
Why should Republicans who vote for her—and whom she needs to win—be the only ones bending? Why not make it easier for them? Why not say she sees them, and understands they’ve given up long-held views? Why not say she’ll give them more than a temporary home, she’ll do everything to make them comfortable there?
If she were fully sincere about the threat Mr. Trump poses, wouldn’t she have pulled the cord of the compromise alarm by now? Her party would let her—they’re desperate to win. And it would convey that she has some mastery over them.
As each day passes more eyes train on the race. You can say big things at the end.