In recent years, the significance of televised debates in American presidential elections has waned considerably. While there are notable exceptions-John F. Kennedy’s iconic debate victory over Richard Nixon in 1960 and George H.W. Bush’s surprising triumph over Michael Dukakis in 1988-the general rule is that debates rarely change election outcomes. In a political landscape dominated by celebrity culture and emotional appeals, debates no longer play the pivotal role they once did.

This phenomenon was on full display during the recent debate between Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for president, and Donald Trump, the former president vying for a return to the White House. Despite Harris’s commendable performance, in which she outshone Trump on several fronts, the debate is unlikely to dramatically sway the election, which remains tightly contested in a handful of battleground states. However, the debate is emblematic of a broader transformation in American politics: the erosion of rational discourse and the rise of emotional, celebrity-driven politics.

The era in which debates served as a decisive platform for candidates to showcase their policies and intelligence appears to be over. In past decades, debates were crucial opportunities for candidates to present well-reasoned arguments to the American electorate. But today, political debates often seem more like reality television than serious discussions of policy issues. This shift is particularly evident in the Trump era, where debates have become showcases for bombastic performances, insults, and grandstanding rather than meaningful engagement on policy.

Donald Trump’s rise to prominence in American politics has epitomized this transformation. A former reality TV star, Trump has expertly leveraged his celebrity status to dominate the political landscape, often at the expense of rational debate. His unconventional and frequently inflammatory style has captivated audiences, but it has also contributed to a decline in the quality of political discourse in the country. Trump’s debates, including the recent one against Kamala Harris, have been characterized by personal attacks, falsehoods, and deflections, which resonate with his base but do little to elevate the political conversation.

Kamala Harris’s approach to the debate stood in stark contrast to Trump’s. Harris, recognizing the importance of raising her profile with the electorate, seized the opportunity to communicate her policy positions clearly and assertively. Throughout the debate, she positioned herself as a tough, intelligent leader with a positive vision for America’s future.

Harris did not shy away from directly attacking Trump on key issues. She condemned his contempt for democratic norms, pointing to his role in inciting the January 6 insurrection as evidence of his unfitness for the presidency. Harris also called out Trump’s divisive rhetoric, accusing him of using race to sow discord among Americans. Her criticisms extended to Trump’s foreign policy, including his alleged subservience to authoritarian regimes and his failure to safeguard America’s standing on the global stage.

One of Harris’s standout moments was when she addressed the stark contrast between her vision for the future and Trump’s nostalgic appeals to a bygone era. She emphasized her commitment to uniting the country and “turning the page” on Trump’s divisiveness, framing herself as the candidate of optimism and progress. In sharp contrast, Trump’s repeated claims that “we are a failing nation” only served to underscore his pessimistic view of America’s current state.

Donald Trump’s debate performance was consistent with his past appearances. Rather than engaging with policy issues, he relied on a barrage of insults, falsehoods, and outlandish claims to deflect from substantive discussions. Predictably, Trump focused heavily on illegal immigration, even though his advisors had urged him to concentrate on issues such as the economy and the cost of living-areas where the Democrats are vulnerable.

Throughout the debate, Trump doubled down on his baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him, insisting that he had no role in the January 6 insurrection. He also attacked Harris personally, labeling her a Marxist and accusing her of destroying the economy and undermining national security by allowing millions of illegal immigrants into the country.

One of Trump’s most bizarre and controversial claims was that illegal immigrants were “eating pets in Springfield,” a statement that encapsulated the fantastical nature of much of his rhetoric. Despite these antics, Trump managed to appear more assured and coherent than in some of his recent public appearances, but his strategy remained largely the same: distract from policy issues and energize his base with emotionally charged attacks

The decline in the quality of political debates reflects a broader shift in American political culture. The notion of a rational, policy-driven debate now seems like a relic of the past. American politics has become so polarized and emotionally charged that many voters are more interested in spectacle than substance. This dynamic was on full display during the Trump-Harris debate, where the focus was less on policy proposals and more on the dramatic contrast between the candidates’ personas.

The current state of American politics is characterized by two deeply divided camps, each of which views the other as an existential threat. In such an environment, where emotional appeals and “magical thinking” often prevail, there is little room for reasoned debate. Both sides are entrenched in their beliefs, and rational argumentation has largely been replaced by partisan talking points and personal attacks.

This polarization is unique to American politics, and it can be difficult for commentators in other Western democracies to understand the distinctiveness of the American political landscape. Trump’s enduring popularity, despite his many scandals and legal challenges, is a testament to the emotional, celebrity-driven nature of modern American politics. In many ways, Trump is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of the American Republic.

While populist politicians such as Nigel Farage and Marine Le Pen share some superficial similarities with Trump, there are fundamental differences that set Trump apart. In no other Western democracy could a convicted felon and fomenter of insurrection seriously aspire to high office. Trump’s rise to power, and his continued influence in American politics, reflects the distinctiveness of the American political system.

Benjamin Franklin, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, famously remarked at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention that the new American Republic would last “as long as the people can keep it.” He warned that the Republic might end in despotism if the people became corrupted. Today, many observers see Trump as both a cause and a symptom of the corruption Franklin warned about. His attacks on democratic institutions, his disdain for the rule of law, and his embrace of authoritarian tactics are all signs of a political system in decline.

Despite Kamala Harris’s clear victory in the debate, the outcome of the 2024 presidential election will likely be decided by a few hundred thousand voters in battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada. Polls indicate that Harris and Trump are neck and neck in these states, and both campaigns are pouring resources into winning over these critical voters.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of each candidate’s ground campaign in the battleground states will determine the outcome of the election. Harris has the advantage of outspending Trump’s campaign, but the race remains close, and both candidates will need to make their final appeals to voters in the weeks ahead.

While debates may no longer have the decisive impact they once did, they still provide valuable insights into the candidates and the state of American political culture. The Trump-Harris debate, in particular, highlighted the profound changes that have taken place in American politics in recent years-the decline of rational discourse, the rise of celebrity-driven campaigns, and the deep polarization that now defines the electorate.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel