by the Editorial Board
Harris said it best: “in this debate tonight, you’re going to hear from the same old, tired playbook, a bunch of lies, grievances and name-calling.” Indeed, both candidates spoke from the “same old, tired playbook”—both in the sense that it was essentially a repetition of the last debate and the last many months of campaigning, and in the sense that it is the politics of the old-society, of capitalism in decay.
The presidential debates allow the imperialists to advertise their representatives to the US population, essentially the competition of two different brands of the same parasitical product. The candidates sell the interests of imperialism to the masses, and like advertisements typical under capitalism, put forward a number of exaggerated claims and lies to try to convince the target audience that the product is good for them and that they need it. Thus the debate took on the appearance of two paid actors saying the same things but in their own way, the unity of imperialism personified as seasoned salesmen selling their differences.
Despite the change in face—both across and within parties—the policies and positions continue along the same trajectory of reactionization, the rightward political shift and concentration of power corresponding to the increased concentration of wealth and monopolization.
Throughout the debate, Harris played into her campaign’s narrative about representing joy and “lifting people up” and painting Trump as trying to “divide and distract from the reality”. Harris has been attempting to position herself as a unifying force of and for the imperialist class in order to continue raking in the bribes and endorsements of the big capitalists, on whom the candidates depend on for the success of their campaigns. To this end, she made clear her intention of being “a president for all Americans,” usurping the position handed to Trump after the shooting at his rally in July, and bringing attention to her endorsement from “200 Republicans… including the endorsement of former Vice President Dick Cheney and Congressmember Liz Cheney.”
Trump on the other hand has increasingly grown hysterical as his once comfortable lead over Biden disappeared with the relatively youthful and combative—though no less reactionary—personality of Harris. His debate performance was characterized by a near-constant stream of delusional claims, such as referring to Harris as a Marxist, accusing migrants of eating pets—at one point stating: “The people on television say my dog was taken and used for food”—and accusing Harris of wanting “to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison.”
Both affirmed their support for a number of backwards policies and positions, such as around the US-Israel genocide of Palestinians, the imperialist proxy war in Ukraine, and immigration and the border. In all cases, each candidate tried to position themselves as further right than the other.
On the US-Israel genocide, Harris began by repeating the debunked lies about the heroic October 7 Palestinian counteroffensive, stating that she has for her “entire career and life supported Israel and the Israeli people”, and that she “will always give Israel the ability to defend itself, in particular as it relates to Iran and any threat that Iran and its proxies pose to Israel. But we must have a two-state solution where we can rebuild Gaza, where the Palestinians have security, self-determination and the dignity they so rightly deserve.” She simultaneously provokes war with Iran while portraying the Palestinian resistance as an Iranian puppet, selling a notion of Palestinian “self-determination” under the auspices of Israel and the US, a Palestinian-Authority-style “self-determination” based on the delusional elimination of Hamas and the resistance.
Trump claimed that Harris “hates Israel” and “the Arab population”, and also focused on the boogeyman of Iran, claiming that Iran has “28 different spheres of terror”—which was not met by any correction by the moderators, despite it being false.
On Ukraine, Trump said that “it’s in the U.S. best interest to get this war finished and just get it done”, and used the fear of a third world war to win votes and traffic in the anti-war sentiments of the masses. Harris positioned herself as more hawkish, advocating for the continuation of the proxy imperialist war, saying that “we understand the importance of the greatest military alliance the world has ever known, which is NATO.” She repeated these chauvinist sentiments again in her closing statement: “I believe in what we can do together that is about sustaining America’s standing in the world and ensuring we have the respect that we so rightly deserve including respecting our military and ensuring we have the most lethal fighting force in the world.”
On immigration and the border, Harris stated her support for a border bill that was designed by “the most conservative members of the United States Senate” and placed the blame on migration for the influx of fentanyl. Trump claimed that “bad immigration is the worst thing that can happen to our economy,” and referred to migrants as “criminals,” “terrorists,” and “drug dealers” under the fabricated category of “migrant crime”, and accused them of “eating the pets of the people”.
The two accused each other of utilizing the state bureaucracy against the other amidst heightening imperialist contention, with Trump claiming that the Democrats “weaponized the justice department” against him, and Harris alleging that Trump would “terminate the constitution of the United States” and “weaponize the Department of Justice against his political enemies.”
Both also made a number of false promises about how they would represent the interests of the people, for example by supporting reproductive rights and economic policies that would help working people.
They both justified their economic plans by invoking “the best economists in our country, if not the world”—none other than Goldman Sachs and the Wharton School of Business, among foremost representatives of imperialist finance, who perpetually strive to realize larger and larger profits off the backs of the working class.
Their supposed support for reproductive rights was no less farcical, for the obvious reason that they have both been in office and facilitated the reversal of these rights—with Trump setting the ground for the removal of Roe v Wade and Harris using its removal only as a carrot to wave above the heads of the masses in the hopes that they will rally behind her. Trump pointed this out: “She should leave right now… go to the capitol, get everyone together and do the things you want to do.”
Many of the hypocrisy, lies, and shifting positions of both candidates were highlighted throughout the debate, not withstanding the farcical nature of the debate itself. One moderator asked Harris: “Vice President Harris, in your last run for president you said you wanted to ban fracking. Now you don’t. You wanted mandatory government buyback programs for assault weapons. Now your campaign says you don’t. You supported decriminalizing border crossings. Now you’re taking a harder line. I know you say that your values have not changed. So then why have so many of your policy positions changed?”
Just like in her recent interview with CNN when asked the same question, she again dodged the question by repeating that her “values have not changed” and pointed out that some of her policies have had continuity for a few years. Trump capitalized on her continuation of his policies—the inevitable rightward trend of reactionization—mockingly stating: “Everything that she believed three years ago and four years ago is out the window. She’s going to my philosophy now. In fact, I was going to send her a MAGA hat.”
Trump’s own hypocrisy, lies, and dodging was also pointed out on nearly every topic discussed. At one point even Harris jumped in, repeatedly telling Trump to “answer the question” as he avoided the moderator’s question about whether or not he would veto a national abortion ban. Though raising such inconsistencies seemingly discredits the candidates, in actuality it provides the candidates with an opportunity to defend themselves and allowing the more fundamental lies to slide—those regarding imperialism and especially around foreign policy and the oppressed nations.
Neither candidate has any genuine credibility among the broad masses. Bourgeois politicians are widely understood as synonymous with swindlers and liars, that they just say what is necessary to provide the imperialist class with another fours years of legitimacy. The elections, the many months of campaigning leading up to them, and the billions of dollars funneled into them for maximum spectacle are all part of the low-intensity counterinsurgency waged by the ruling class to rally the masses behind their cause, because their best assurances against rebellion, aside from the army and police, is the pretense of the people’s choice. Boycotting the elections provides a necessary starting point, a rejection of the farce, a basis to pose the question of power for the working class and invigorate the struggles of the masses on that basis. The debates, though advertisements for imperialism, also provide a basis for exposing imperialism, to cut through the fog of lies and half-truths and energize anti-imperialist rebellion.
