The first debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump confirmed that Democrats were wise to ditch Joe Biden after his disastrous appearance at the first debate. Harris successfully baited Trump into angry rants, while she stayed focused on her core themes (“not going back,” “opportunity economy,” etc.) She delivered the Democratic message effectively, for instance, by movingly explaining what abortion bans actually mean in practice for women’s lives. She came well-prepared and is rightly being praised for her performance. There will be memes made of her facial expressions, and you can tell that Donald Trump lost by the fact that his supporters are whining about the moderators and claiming that Kamala Harris must have had answers fed to her through an earpiece. 

But even though Democrats will undoubtedly be pleased by the debate (Joe Biden set the bar pretty low, after all), I think any person who wants to address the most serious injustices and threats of our time should be deeply troubled by what both Harris and Trump said at the debate, as well as what they didn’t say. Harris chose not to defend progressive positions on climate change, the economy, immigration, and foreign policy, whether because she thinks it’s “strategic” not to defend progressive values, or because she genuinely holds right-leaning views. In doing so, she narrowed the public discourse on these issues, so that the spectrum of opinion in the debate ran between conservatism and extreme right-wing derangement. 

Climate Change: Where Is the Urgency? 

The day of the presidential debate, the Washington Post reported that “methane levels in the atmosphere are tracking those projected by the worst-case climate scenarios” and “the accelerating emissions will make it nearly impossible for the world to meet its climate goals, the authors warned.” The past summer was the hottest ever on record, and we are on track for escalating climate change fueled disasters that will wreak havoc on human society, causing an immense amount of human suffering. As U.N. Secretary-General António Gutteres said in his important special address on climate action, “We need an exit ramp off the highway to climate hell.” 

At the presidential debate, climate change went entirely unmentioned until the very end, although Kamala Harris was asked early on why she stopped supporting a fracking ban. (She did not say, but she affirmed that she is pro-fracking, despite the serious environmental and public health harms, which she chose not to mention.) The climate question (“What would you do to fight climate change?”) was directed first to Harris, who said that unlike Donald Trump, she does not believe climate change is a hoax. That’s good, but then she did not make any attempt to answer the question. She did not explain, for instance, that we need a Green New Deal in order to make sure we get to zero emissions as rapidly as possible. 

In fact, she didn’t actually say that she would do anything about it. Instead, she talked about the Biden administration’s existing efforts, which are marked by a contradictory mix of fossil fuel production expansion with an attempt to “green” the economy. As Harris said in her answer, “we have invested a trillion dollars in a clean energy economy while we have also increased domestic gas production to historic levels.” She then started talking about American manufacturing generally, touting the endorsement of the United Auto Workers and accusing Donald Trump of harming American manufacturing. That was all she said, and the New York Times noted how “unusual” it was to use a climate question to boast about fossil fuel production, something the Biden administration has previously been “reluctant” to mention too prominently since it’s incompatible with our ostensible climate goals. 

Donald Trump’s own answer, of course, was far, far worse. Sometimes, when asked about climate change, he pivots to saying that he believes in “clean air and water,” perhaps hoping that people are so ignorant about the issue that they will think this is the same thing as halting global warming. (Or perhaps because he is this ignorant himself.) This time he didn’t even do that, or mention climate at all. Instead, he angrily insisted that it was Biden and Harris who had lost manufacturing jobs, promised to introduce new tariffs, and accused Biden of being on the payroll of China and Ukraine. “Why did he get 3 1/2 million dollars from the mayor of Moscow's wife? Why did he get—why did she pay him 3 1/2 million dollars? This is a crooked administration, and they're selling our country down the tubes.” So concluded his answer on climate change. Moderator Linsey Davis, apparently satisfied with this, said “President Trump, thank you,” and moved on to closing arguments. Climate was never mentioned again, the word itself having been uttered only once by either candidate during the whole 90 minutes.

We know Trump’s actual climate policy, of course. It’s “drill, baby, drill,” and he wants to rip up every environmental policy on the books and drive us hurtling toward catastrophe at high speed. Harris could have pointed out the immense damage that has been done by Trump’s environmental policies, and what a second Trump term would mean in terms of accelerating the number of apocalyptic disasters we face. But while she briefly mentioned the harms of climate change, she continued her pattern of going “light on climate policy,” i.e., declining to discuss the most serious immediate threat facing our planet or offer any plans for dealing with it. 

Do Democrats even notice that they have become a party of soft climate deniers? As Climate Defiance put it, “If you’re going to call it an ‘existential threat’ you shouldn’t brag about increasing production of the thing that causes it.” Harris’s words admit that the problem is real, but surely if she believed what she was saying, she would speak of the problem with the same urgency that climate scientists themselves do. Because of how awful Donald Trump is, it might be easy not to notice just how weak Harris’s messaging here is. So I’ve come up with an example of what I think is a good answer on the issue. You can compare it to Harris’s answer, and you can measure how well Democrats are talking about the issue by how close they are to saying something like this: 

“Climate change is the most urgent existential threat we face because it affects everything—our economy, national security, public health, and future generations. The science is clear: if we don’t take immediate, bold action, we risk irreparable damage to our planet and our livelihoods. We’ve already seen the impact of rising sea levels, wildfires, heat waves, worsening storms, and droughts on communities across the country and around the world. The stakes couldn’t be higher. This isn’t a future problem—it’s happening now. The window to prevent the most catastrophic consequences of climate change is closing, and if we don’t act now, we face runaway climate effects that will reshape every aspect of our lives.

 

The Biden administration has made meaningful progress, including the Inflation Reduction Act, the largest-ever federal investment in clean energy. It’s a good start, but we need to go further and faster. That's why I support the Green New Deal. It offers a bold vision to transition to a 100% renewable energy economy, create millions of good-paying jobs, and prioritize frontline communities most impacted by climate change. As president, I will push for aggressive carbon emissions reductions, massive investments in renewable infrastructure, and make sure we fully decarbonize our economy. We must meet—and exceed—our Paris commitments. This means holding polluters accountable, phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, and leading internationally to ensure other countries do their part. We cannot afford incrementalism. Climate action is not just a policy issue—it’s a moral imperative. We need transformational policies that match the urgency of this moment. And that’s exactly what I’ll deliver as president.” 

Immigration: Where Is The Compassion?

In Harris’s recent CNN appearance, her first televised interview as the nominee, I noticed something a little disquieting. Harris was asked, “Why did the Biden-Harris administration wait three and a half years to implement sweeping asylum restrictions?” Harris replied that the Biden administration had successfully reduced the flow of migrants from Central America. Then she said that Congress had been prepared to pass a bipartisan “border security bill,” but Donald Trump had killed it. She said the bill would have stemmed the flow of fentanyl into the country. A follow-up question asked if she thought unauthorized border crossings should be decriminalized. Harris replied that “we have laws that have to be followed and enforced that address and deal with people who cross our border illegally,” and then discussed her history of prosecuting traffickers. Then the subject was changed.

What disturbed me during the CNN interview was that Harris didn’t even take a single sentence to explain that migrants are not a threat to this country, that immigration is good for America, and that while we need to deal with legitimate threats (like the trafficking of guns and human beings), we need to resist the effort of right-wing demagogues to turn desperate asylum-seekers into some kind of menace to our communities. (I was also disturbed by the obvious bias of CNN’s question. Asking “why did you wait so long to implement asylum restrictions” is an inherently ideological question that implies support for the restrictions. CNN could have asked instead “Why did you put harsh restrictions on people who come here seeking refuge from persecution?”) 

The debate was similarly disturbing. Donald Trump, of course, tried to stoke the fear of foreigners, telling viewers that immigrants were coming in from “all over the world,” committing “migrant crime,” and even eating people’s pets. (“The people on television say my dog was taken and used for food.”) But Kamala Harris, once again, did not actually defend immigrants. For instance, when Trump launched into his rant about Haitian pet-eaters, Harris responded by saying that it was “extreme,” but she did not take the opportunity to talk about how people’s perceptions of immigrants are often governed by nasty stereotypes. She could have talked about how both she and Trump are descended from immigrants who came to this country to contribute to it. She could have talked about the contributions that Haitians are making to the communities they move to, and the horrific violence they are fleeing in Haiti. Instead, she touted her endorsement from Dick Cheney (which is nothing to be proud of) and listed members of the defense and national security establishment who think Trump is unfit for office. She did not say one positive thing about immigrants. As Jon Schwarz noted, “it is extremely disturbing that a former president and his ticket mate are, together with the richest man on earth [Elon Musk], spreading blood libel garbage about a minority group.” Harris should have forcefully responded to this. It is not just “extreme.” It is the stuff of deranged fascist propaganda, the kind that leads to dehumanization and extreme cruelty.  

There are other criticisms one can make of Harris’s immigration answers, such as furthering the idea that fentanyl is brought in by unauthorized immigrants rather than explaining that it’s mostly brought in through ports of entry and by U.S. citizens. The “border bill” Harris was so enthusiastic about also authorized sweeping new executive deportation powers that would allow people to be deported even if they had a valid asylum claim (because that claim would never be heard). But the most basic thing a Democratic presidential candidate should be able to do on immigration is explain why xenophobia is both irrational and immoral, and to speak up for those fleeing violence and persecution. Tell Americans that instead of fearing that their cats will be gobbled up, they should see that people arriving at our borders are not our enemies, and we should welcome new arrivals to our communities. 

The Economy: What About Inequality? 

I have a friend, a schoolteacher in Detroit, who has to collect her students’ families’ income data to certify that the school qualifies for federal supplemental assistance. Some families’ reported annual incomes are well under $30,000, including one with four children. Meanwhile, the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, is earning $43,000 a minute, and the lives of the superrich are utterly grotesque. The inequality in this country is deeply disturbing, and a Democratic candidate should be running on the platform of ending poverty and guaranteeing quality education, housing, and healthcare for all. (The word “poverty” was not mentioned once in the debate.) 

Once again, Harris left the basic problem mostly undiscussed. Asked about healthcare, she decided to use a portion of her answer to tell viewers that she and Tim Walz are gun owners! She then lambasted Trump for trying to get rid of the Affordable Care Act and explained why things were worse before it was enacted in 2012. She touted the Biden administration’s caps on drug prices, and promised to strengthen the Affordable Care Act further in unspecified ways. But she did not take the basic step of explaining why we need Medicare For All, a policy she previously said she supported. 

There wasn’t much economic populism in Harris’s responses. She didn’t even mention the need to raise the minimum wage, something that she ostensibly endorses. How hard is it to say you’ll raise the minimum wage? Or that you will end homelessness? And while Harris touted her UAW endorsement and name-dropped Shawn Fain, she never mentioned anything she planned to do to help build the labor movement, such as signing the PRO Act. (In fact Trump was the only one to say the word “union” during the whole debate, in which, predictably, he said immigrants hurt unions.) As Ben Burgis observed, “on economic policy, her main emphasis was on promoting the unconvincing economics of creating abundant housing without having to do anything but a few tax breaks and some zoning deregulation.”

Foreign Policy: Where Is Peace?

In her closing statement, Kamala Harris said: “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.” Most lethal fighting force? What about ensuring that global conflicts are resolved diplomatically, so that we don’t have to send young people into war? The word “peace” was not spoken once during the debate.

In fact, it was Donald Trump who issued the most severe warnings about the potential threat of nuclear war in the 21st century, responding to Harris’s proud support for “Ukraine in its righteous defense” by noting that Vladimir Putin has “nuclear weapons. […] [M]aybe he'll use them. […] [N]obody likes to talk about it.” Indeed, the fact that the U.S. and Russia have ended up fighting what is essentially a proxy war in Ukraine means we are closer to the possibility of a direct military confrontation between nuclear-armed powers than at any point since the Cold War. The idea that Trump is anti-war is, as we have pointed out before, ludicrous. But he at least seemed to understand that it is better to resolve conflicts through diplomatic settlements than through war, especially when nuclear weapons are lurking in the background. (The moderators did not, of course, think to ask how the candidates will reduce the global nuclear threat and get us closer to a nuclear weapons-free world, because the topic goes virtually undiscussed in this country.)

Harris repeatedly seemed to try to out-hawk Trump, criticizing him for inviting the Taliban to Camp David and for thanking President Xi. She accused him of having “exchanged love letters with Kim Jong Un.” But maintaining civil diplomatic relations with world leaders is actually an important part of a president’s job description. No, you should not coddle them or be silent about their human rights abuses. But the problem with Donald Trump is not that he “sold us out to China” or thanked Xi. This is a Trumpian criticism of Trump. In fact, the problem is with Trump’s bellicosity toward Xi and China, who he calls our “enemy.” The idea that Trump was too soft on North Korea is outlandish. In fact, Trump was the one who risked conflict by once threatening them with “fire and fury.” The correct criticism of Trump is that his belligerent temperament risks causing unnecessary global conflict, not that he is too diplomatic. 

On Gaza, Harris offered predictable platitudes. She could have said that Israel needed to be held to account for its recent extrajudicial execution of an American citizen. She did not. She promised that Palestinians would eventually have “self-determination,” but she failed to mention that the reason they don’t is that Israel occupies their land and the U.S. refuses to join the world in recognizing a Palestinian state. Trump ludicrously accused Harris of hating Israel, when in fact she refused to utter a word of criticism of Israel, beyond lamenting that “too many innocent Palestinians have been killed.” Nothing indicated that Harris will change the Biden administration’s policy of unlimited weapons aid to Israel, protection of Israel at the U.N., and refusal to recognize Palestine. 

The Harris Approach

Readers who detest Donald Trump may think I’ve been too harsh on Harris here. But there are good reasons for critiquing her answers. As I’ve pointed out before, when Democrats do not offer much of substance and run on “Trump is bad,” a lot of voters wonder what Democrats will actually do to solve the problems in their lives. Incredibly, some pundits are pushing Democrats in the opposite direction, saying Kamala Harris does not need “policy” (i.e., an explanation of what she will do as president) in order to win. That doesn’t seem to be the case. The New York Times reports that while pundits were pleased with Kamala’s performance, undecided voters “wanted the fine print” because Harris’s soundbites like “opportunity economy” weren’t enough. I’m not just offering a complaint here that Harris didn’t offer the policies I want, but warning that lots of other people want them too, and that they will not settle for platitudes. 

Harris’s approach seems to be to try to win over Republicans and “moderates” by making sure she doesn’t sound too liberal on guns, the military, immigration, climate change, or economics. Morally, I think that’s wrong. Maybe it’s electorally smart to talk about how you own guns, rather than talk about why gun violence is a serious problem and we need to make sure would-be spree killers don’t get access to military-grade weapons. But gun violence is a serious problem, and the president should be trying to stop it rather than ignoring it in order to get elected. I also don’t think that trying to morph into a moderate Republican is ultimately actually very “pragmatic,” though. People can sense insincerity. They can tell when you haven’t offered anything of substance. Harris may beat Trump, although it’s best never to underestimate him. Even if she does, however, once she gets into office, if she does not do anything transformative to address the most serious crises of our time, she will become very unpopular, very fast, and the next Trump will build political support from her failures. 

Noam Chomsky has pointed out that we can tell much about a country from examining the spectrum of debate: how far does it go on either side. As he said:

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.

I couldn’t help but recall this quote while watching the U.S. presidential debate. It was indeed “very lively,” but based on a shared framework of right-wing assumptions. To understand where these candidates actually stand, we can’t look just at where they stand vis-a-vis each other. We also have to look at what they never discuss, the assumptions that aren’t even debated.