In American politics, debates serve as formalities. Party loyalty runs rampant and debates leading up to any election do very little to sway audiences that are already dead-set on who they’re going to vote for. Nevertheless, candidates must still prepare themselves to be broadcast on live television for millions of voters to see.
The presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump provides great insight into the strategy of the new-age public servant: do away with ethos and logos, and make sure pathos is in full swing.
Rhetoric can be defined simply as the words used to persuade an audience and is a vital component in many an English essay or discussion post on Canvas. It also is — or should be — a vital component of any debate or political campaign. For instance, how can one expect to sway the general U.S. population and have them agree with one’s stance without the use of rhetoric?
However, on the day of the second 2024 presidential debate, rhetoric goes flying out the window. The Harris-Trump debate makes a mockery of our modern-day political system; no longer are presidential candidates relying on their policy platform to garner votes, instead ambushing the other party with insults and logical fallacies. We are watching the dynastic decline of rhetoric occur in real time in American politics and there is very little we can do about it.
The debate starts like any other — the two candidates exchange pleasantries as they take to their respective podiums.
It takes no longer than 10 minutes for this formal debate to devolve into a he said, she said exchange. Vice President Harris falls into a rhythm of repeating “Donald Trump left us with,” claiming he has caused “the worst unemployment since the Great Depression,” “the worst public health epidemic in a century” and “worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War” without defending her policies after having the decisions of her joint administration with President Joe Biden criticized.
Harris then brings up Project 2025, a right-wing federal policy agenda, as a plan Trump would be implementing.
“I have nothing to do with Project 2025. That’s out there. I haven’t read it. I don’t want to read it, purposely,” Trump says.
Project 2025 is a conservative initiative created by the Heritage Foundation, a far-right think tank that aims to propel and instill “traditional” values and policies in the U.S. Some of these policies include opposing reproductive rights, immigrant rights and LGBTQIA+ rights.
The use of this policy platform as a fear mongering tactic by the Democratic Party is increasingly prevalent. Harris’ running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, plays into it as well in many rallies.
However, according to Trump himself, they denounce the document and are attempting to distance his policy agenda from this plan.
No longer bent on convincing voters with mainly facts and figures, politicians are shifting in the direction of appealing to the U.S. population’s worst fears to earn their trust. The art of pure rhetoric — the art of elegant persuasion without fear-mongering — is completely lost.
Make no mistake, this deflective debate strategy isn’t a problem exclusive to Harris. In fact, it can be argued that she merely responds to the times Trump denounces the Biden-Harris administration’s management of the economy.
Trump also has his fair share of comments that rivals the aggressive nature of Harris. In fact, he introduces hypotheticals that are far out of the realm of possibility, known in layman’s terms as lies.
“Now she wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison,” Trump says during the debate. “This is a radical left liberal … She wants to confiscate your guns.”
Both Harris and Walz are gun owners and strong proponents of the Second Amendment. That being said, they will likely not be confiscating any legal firearms in their prospective positions. That entire passage serves as Trump’s lazy attempt at appealing to the fears of the average Republican voter.
Trump speaks as if he is bent on including as many buzzwords as possible to instill fear in American citizens. Trump synthesizes right-wing fear of “transgender operations” and “illegal aliens” to create one outlandish lie — with not a speck of ethos or logos to be found.
Neither Trump nor Harris will suddenly switch gears and begin focusing on being the best candidate they can be, as opposed to simply being “better” than the opposition. In fact, it would be unfair to completely fault them for bringing the other candidate down; in competition, it is human nature to win. Sometimes, unfortunately, the only way towards victory is to completely omit rhetoric and rely on partisan attacks.
Instead of pointing fingers and exchanging logical fallacies in lieu of exchanging ideas, politicians should be more focused on uplifting their policy platform. Instead of trying to critique the opposition by using the far-fetched version of opposing policy they have in their heads, politicians should use true hard-hitting facts and figures — bring back the what and why.
Rebecca Do is an Opinion Intern for the fall 2024 quarter. She can be reached at dort@uci.edu.
Edited by Trista Lara and Jacob Ramos.