'A stomach-churning evening of macabre theatre' – Trump, Clinton and a presidential debate like none before
We were wrong. The national conversation, and last night’s debate, reached an even deeper low.
The first debate was the highest-stakes moment in modern American electoral history, two New Yorkers with diametrically opposed interests and attitudes locked in battle, the cut-throat capitalist and the consummate politician fighting for the nation’s future. Once Clinton trounced an under-practiced and exhausted Trump, each subsequent debate would be old hat, that the vice-presidential and second debates, and so on, would serve as yawn-inducing moments tinged with an inevitability.
And, yet. As with the seemingly boundless confusion that has abounded this wildly unpredictable election season, last night will not change anything. The second debate was a stomach-churning evening of macabre theatre, one in which two separate campaigns set their own trajectories, operating in different universes of reason. A coolheaded Clinton emerged a principled global leader, acknowledging faults and effectively parrying questions around decorum, shaken at moments by theatrics and stagecraft. An against-all-odds Trump loomed large, and emerged dirtily appeasing his hungry Breitbart- and conspiracy-fueled base.
From Monday’s AP report to Friday’s Access Hollywood hot mic release from Washington Post, the nation learned Trump likely has no avenue to win. He has clearly taken that to heart: Trump began his evening early, surprising the press corps with not “debate prep” photo opportunity but a surprise a news conference alongside Bill Clinton’s accusers. As stomach-churning as his taped comments appeared Friday, today was the campaign’s WWE moment, an eerie, unctuous National Enquirer-come-to-life show with Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon bringing dangerous, alt-right imagery mainstream. Trump understands he must destroy both Clintons to have any chance of winning – he is, in short, destroying their lives again for the sake of impossible opportunity.
As with the first debate, once each settled into their ongoing sparring, the candidates’ non-verbal tics were the codes the few remaining undecided voters might parse. Clinton deliberately and correctly avoided the initial handshake – and the physicality of the debate was likely the most shocking and distracting. During her earnest answers to questioners, Trump would loom with a too-close stare, speaking over her, challenging moderators, lumbering around – not a terribly strong look for an individual caught on tape with such lewd comments against women.
As they were putting one another’s histories on trial, both candidates made quick work of moderators Martha Raddatz and Anderson Cooper. Raddatz and Cooper were not subject to the same journalistic scrutiny as NBC’s Lester Holt, and still did not manage the clock or candidates as effectively in a format that lent itself to Trump’s wrestling-ring braggadocio and antsy pacing. The moderators did attempt to honorably fact-check or at least double down on questions as Trump shifted from city to city and crisis to crisis, but to no avail.
Trump, still, doubled down on his candidacy’s signature proposals. He acknowledged his “genius” in avoiding paying federal taxes, and tripled down on appointing special prosecutor to “assess” Clinton’s time as secretary of state. He even threw running mate Pence under his proverbial bus in their differences on Syria. All impossible in an average – or any – year, but with Trump’s verbal and factual acrobatics were made real and tangible.
Trump has no chance of winning, but last night’s non-disaster might help contain many of the GOPers ready to “jump ship.” Clinton herself had some challenges – Bill Clinton excoriating Obama’s signature Affordable Care Act, her statements around the public and private work of a politician – all tackled with elegance and reason, despite Trump’s literal and figurative efforts to step on Clinton’s toes.
Given the extraordinary year and circumstances, voters’ perspectives are relatively fixed. From Friday’s release, the game has already progressed and it is highly unlikely whatever either candidate shared last night will shift Americans’ perspectives. This is the nadir of Obama-era optimism, and Trump now threatens to destroy the progress Obama made toward encouraging a generation care as much about the nation’s civic and political health as they care about their smartphone screens. We should now fear Trump taints democratic participation and politics for a generation.
Matthew Spector advises brands and communicators around contemporary public affairs and cultural issues as principal of Bow Bridge Consultants