A Debate Worth Watching from The Free Press
Four days ago, The Free Press published a debate between Sam Harris, representing the argument for VP Kamala Harris, and Ben Shapiro, representing the argument for former President Trump (see below).
In an election cycle marred with scandals, lies, and general distrust by the electorate - say nothing of the last decade of American life - it is no surprise that the official presidential and vice presidential debates lacked substance. We have been plagued by sloppy rhetoric, spitting vitriol, and stunning political division. Our debates were a reflection of our vapid and base cultural milieu; not the cause of our chaotic state, our political life is a consequence a churning social foundation. The Harris/Shapiro debate is far more substantive that what we’ve come to expect and I strongly recommend you watch it if you are an uncertain voter.
The following are the strong points, as I see it, of each debater’s position.
Sam Harris
Strong points…
Harris is at his best when he criticizes Trump for his refusal to amicably seed the election. Harris argues that Trump pressured Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes,” flagrantly violating the democratic norms that underpin the stability of our society. This fact, one example in a matrix of evidence demonstrating Trumps unwillingness to support a peaceful transfer of power, disqualifies Trump for the Presidency.
This is not a difficult argument to make. Trump’s (and J.D. Vance’s) refusal to admit defeat to this day is laughable. Trump lost. This is not to say that there wasn’t election interference. As Sam himself notes, our elections are constantly being interfered with by foreign interlopers. Nor, I might add, does this mean that there wasn’t election fraud. Presumably, there is some amount of fraud in every election. The question is whether that fraud is statistically significant.
Harris does a good job holding the "peaceful transfer of power” as sacred to our democracy and argues convincingly that Trump is disqualified for the Presidency for violating this norm.
Ben Shapiro
Strong Points…
There’s no question about it, Shapiro is at his best when defending Trump’s foreign policy. Too often, contemporary debates devolve into a thinly veiled “he/she gives me the ick.” It is always a breath of fresh air when policy, the concrete means of running the country, come into play. Shapiro mentions the Abraham Accords, a peace treaty between Israel and multiple Arab states, formed, in part, to combat Iran’s influence in the region. Kamala’s policy regime is vague, to say the least, and under her administration two wars broke out. At one point, Harris is skeptical about whether October 7th would have been avoided had Donald Trump been in office. Shapiro’s reply (timestamp: 1:41:50) is a remarkable reply.
Kamala Harris’s residency in “word salad city,” as David Axelrod has said, is a liability. This leaves the average voter dependent on her policy record as VP. This record is abysmal: the Afghanistan pullout, preventing Saudi Arabia from joining the Abraham Accords, a war in Ukraine (with tens-of-billions of US dollars spent), a war in Israel, and catastrophic border policy which includes the end of “Remain in Mexico.” Naturally, these policies may rest on the shoulders of Joe Biden more than Kamala Harris. Unfortunately, Kamala has done little to differentiate herself from her predecessor.
When it comes to defending Trump’s foreign policy, Shapiro speaks quickly and carries big stick.