Harris vs. Trump Is Taking Shape. And Then There’s Vance.

 

OPINION

THE CONVERSATION

Harris vs. Trump Is Taking Shape. And Then There’s Vance.

July 29, 2024

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/29/opinion/kamala-harris-trump-2024.html

Gail CollinsBret Stephens

By Gail Collins and Bret Stephens

 

Ms. Collins and Mr. Stephens are Opinion columnists. They converse every week.

 

Gail Collins: Bret, we’re beginning a whole new era in presidential politics, and before we get rolling I want to give you ample opportunity to retract your threat not to vote in a Trump-vs.- Harris election.

 

Bret Stephens: My feelings about this election are approximately what Henry Kissinger’s were about the Iran-Iraq war: It’s a pity both sides can’t lose. You know that I will never, ever vote for Donald Trump. But I can’t quite see why I should cast my New York vote — a meaningless vote, as we both know — in favor of a politician whose views I oppose and whose judgment I doubt.

 

Persuade me that I’m wrong.

 

Gail: Democracy is ideally about voting for the good guys and rejecting the bad, but we’re all well aware of the many, many elections that feature two unwelcome options.

 

Refusing to pick a less-bad choice is being, well, a kinda snob.

 

Bret: Guilty as charged.

 

Gail: And when you’ve got a choice between a woman who you don’t agree with about taxes and spending versus a man who’s shown himself perfectly capable of trying to overthrow the government if he loses, the options are pretty obvious.

 

Bret: That was pretty much my reasoning when I cast my votes for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden: two liberal Democrats who nonetheless struck me as safe pairs of hands, particularly when it came to world affairs.

 

I just don’t have the same faith in Kamala Harris. She’s given no indication that she can run a campaign or an office competently, much less a country. She frequently speaks in inanities. Her contribution to fixing the border crisis was less than zero — in fact, she publicly denied there was a crisis. I doubt she strikes fear in the hearts of the tyrants in Tehran, Beijing or Moscow at a moment when all of those dictatorships are on the march.

 

Gail: Hey, nobody knows what Putin’s thinking.

 

Sorry, I’m being snippy. Go on.

 

Bret: She doesn’t even seem to be a particularly nice person, at least to judge by this report in The Washington Post: “Staffers who worked for Harris before she was vice president said one consistent problem was that Harris would refuse to wade into briefing materials prepared by staff members, then berate employees when she appeared unprepared.”

 

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter  Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.

Gail: Could be, but you often hear those complaints from people whose job it is to prepare those briefing materials.

 

Bret: And there’s this additional damning detail, noted by the liberal legal scholar Lara Bazelon in a 2019 guest essay in The Times: “Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors.”

 

Come on: Is this someone I’m supposed to be enthusiastic about?

 

Gail: Did not ask for enthusiasm, Bret! Just hold-your-nose-and-pick-the-least-bad-option.

 

Although I have to say, so far I’m pleased with the choice. Harris is a politician who has most definitely grown in her jobs. The critiques from years ago don’t necessarily apply to the woman we’re looking at now.

 

And yeah, all things being equal, I do like the idea of a woman.

 

Bret: Too bad Biden never gave his party the chance to have a real primary that might have yielded a better nominee. Although, the one silver lining of a Harris victory, should it come about, is that it might finally end the Trump cult and restore normality to the Republican Party. Of course, that’s what I said after the last presidential election, to my everlasting embarrassment.

 

I will say, however, that I’d be more reconciled to the idea of a Harris presidency if she chose a running mate with deep foreign-policy experience — sort of a Dick Cheney to her George W. Bush. My favorite candidate is Jim Stavridis, the former NATO commander, or perhaps Jim Mattis, Trump’s first defense secretary. Anyone who strikes fear in the hearts of our enemies would be fine by me. Your preferences?

 

Gail: I have confidence that Harris can bring in a cabinet full of foreign affairs experts without needing to borrow one of Trump’s. For vice president, must admit I’m kinda drawn to Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, because he’s got an unusual astronaut background and a strong history on gun safety.

 

Bret: I like him, too. And he flew Intruders in the Navy, which is always a recommendation. Also? He’s not a lawyer.

 

Gail: But there’s quite a list of guy governors she’s apparently considering. I might want to toss in Andy Beshear of Kentucky, who’s good at winning votes from a conservative electorate. And as a former state attorney general, he can go arm in arm with Harris, a former prosecutor and attorney general herself, in reminding the public about Trump’s, um, troubled history with the law.

 

Speaking of vice presidents, am I right in feeling JD Vance has already become a political disaster area?

 

Bret: As in Dan Quayle with a brain or Sarah Palin with a beard? His job is to present himself as a smarter and more articulate version of Trump. So far, he’s just been a younger and meaner one. His stupid jibe against “childless cat ladies” may come back to haunt him on Nov. 5, not least among the 46 million American women who are childless. He would not fare well against Kelly in a debate.

 

That said, I still think this election remains Trump’s to lose. Harris is tied to Biden’s record, which is deeply unpopular. How would you advise her to campaign and separate herself from her boss?

 

Gail: Hard to have this argument since I think Biden has done a pretty darn good job. The economy is under control, price-wise, employment is way up, the country’s at least making strides in environmental control that will allow the parents of today to look their grandkids in the eyes.

 

I, um, know you don’t quite agree.

 

Bret: My disagreement is almost beside the point. It’s public perception that counts. Only 17 percent of Americans feel they are better off financially today than they were four years ago. Food is way more expensive. Rents are higher. Interest payments are up. Harris’s political problem is that her boss gets most of the blame for this, and she has to find a way to distance herself from him without dissing him. Question is: How would a Harris administration differ?

 

Gail: In 2019, a top Harris priority was tax relief for the working class. Which you can pay for by raising taxes on the rich. Part of which can be spent on universal pre-K programs. We have argued about this before, but I think the possibility of low-income kids going to school at a very early age is super critical. Then when the time comes, they’ll be ready to learn reading, writing and other academic skills.

 

Bret: Poorer kids trapped in failing public schools deserve the same schooling options that wealthier families have, including access to private schools through vouchers. So far, Harris has only pandered to the teachers’ unions that are wedded to a disastrous status quo. I’m no fan of her opposition to free trade deals, though on this subject she’s no worse than Trump. And I don’t understand what Harris believes when it comes to socializing medicine and abolishing private insurance; it isn’t entirely clear that she knows what she believes, either.

 

Bottom line, for me, is that Harris is either a furtive progressive or a rank opportunist, and neither wins my vote. But, of course, she’s not Trump. That’s just about her only recommendation.

 

Gail: Pretty big recommendation.

 

Well, Bret, we’ve got — what, 14 weeks until the election. Be ready for 14 more nags about voting.

 

Bret: I get it. Trump is the worst president of my lifetime. And he’s also done the most to reshape the Republican Party into something unrecognizable to someone like me, who grew up in Ronald Reagan’s shadow. In fact, of all the damage Trump has done, probably the worst is to the old conservative consensus, which believed in classically liberal ideals like free trade, strong international alliances and the benefits of immigration, as well as some classically conservative ones, like the necessity of moral character in political leadership and civility in public life. Watching the Republican convention, which was the extended worship of a man rather than of a set of principles, was just four days of nausea. I’ll never be reconciled to it. Being politically homeless just … sucks.

 

Gail: Just remember there’s a light in the Harris window for you. True, it’s casting a few shadows of taxation and government spending you may not love. But you could have a Kamala voters’ room reserved for NABATs — the folks whose political philosophy this year is Nothing’s as Bad as Trump.

 

Bret: I’ll remember NABATs. And I promise to think on it, Gail.

 

And before we go: I don’t think there’s a better critic in America today than The Times’s Dwight Garner. So it’s a double delight to read his review of another great critic, Peter Schjeldahl, who died a couple of years ago and whose last book, “The Art of Dying,” collected his pieces from the final years of his life. I found this paragraph from Garner’s review, about the 2022 Whitney Biennial, apropos of our conversation:

 

The Biennial review is a reminder that Schjeldahl exited lockdown into a world transformed by new social and political forces, including Black Lives Matter. Art fueled by these forces could be galvanizing, by braving the “routine chaos” of the world, but it was too often predictable and prescriptive. “Must ideology define us?” he asked, in a review of another show dominated by political themes. “Can we demur from one extreme without implicitly being lumped in with its opposite?”

 

Gail Collins is a Times Opinion columnist focusing on domestic politics. @GailCollins • Facebook

 

Bret Stephens is an Opinion columnist for The Times, writing about foreign policy, domestic politics and cultural issues. Facebook