Hot take: Self-restraint is a desired quality in the President.
Have you ever said something just to get a rise out of someone? Let’s be fair, we all have. How many times do we succeed though? Human beings are confrontational. We have opinions, believes, values and morals that often conflict with the opinions beliefs, morals and values of the person standing next to us. Debate and argument are fun! Many of us try to incite it just to enjoy the debate. Pot stirrers. But how often are you successful in a conversation with another grown adult in baiting them into a narcissistic defense of their own worth?
If you are reading this, you probably already know that I am a lawyer. Which is relevant here because it means I spend a lot of time asking people questions. Most of the time those questions are straight forward and primarily intended to find the information that I do not already have. Sometimes though, it is more than finding the information, and is, instead, about controlling, spinning and interpreting that information. In those situations, the questions are designed to influence the presentation of the information and impact the consequence. As lawyers we succeed in directing the flow of information and managing its contours with preparation and strategy. We lay traps through the course of a deposition or cross examination. Frankly, much of the time it really isn’t that hard to lead a witness down the path you want them to go. The best witnesses, though, see the traps, see the path you are directing them down and decline to take the bait. Those people are smart, well-prepared, experienced and can be very tough, even impossible to crack (they are also the most fun to question). If this is in a deposition, it can tell you a lot about the strength or weakness or your case. How your witnesses and your opponents witnesses perform under pressure might tell you everything you need to know about your case, for better or worse.
Which brings me to my point, I have been watching presidential debates since I was in high school. I haven’t wanted them all because, lord knows, they can be boring as hell. In most debates we do not actually learn anything of value about the candidate. All we see is how good or bad they are at avoiding a question (how well they dance) and how successful they are at repeating the scripted talking points (making soundbites). A debate never actually told me anything about a candidate’s ability to do a President’s job. That is… until September 10, 2024.
There has been no shortage of hot takes on Trump/Harris showdown. The consensus is that Harris had a great night, and Trump a terrible one. Of course, the stark policy positions were plainly visible, but we did not learn anything new, and no one bothered to spend time talking about what they would do in the oval office. That part is all typical. What made this debate unique was the difference in self-control. Look, wherever you fall on the political spectrum you cannot, with a straight-face, deny that VP Harris comported herself with a calm poise. She was the definition of cool, calm and collected. More importantly, with the skill of a seasoned trial lawyer she laid the bait and set the traps for Trump.
Trump, for his part, was most concerned with mounting an ego-centric defense of his own self-perceived excellence or touting ridiculous lies and conspiracy theories. Of course, the sheer magnitude of his ego and self-aggrandizement should give anyone pause. His willingness to put forward ridiculous lies on a national stage – see his claims of Democrats wanting to execute babies (honestly, whoever who could imagine a former President of the United States, needing to be told/fact-checked with “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after its born.”) – is disturbing. No doubt, his penchant for engaging with unsupported sensationalist rumors about immigrants eating house pets denigrates the entire conversation. But honestly, all of that is very much typical Trump behavior. Perhaps a little more extreme than his typical rhetoric when in a national spotlight, but only a little. Those are the sorts of things we expect to see from him, if a bit less extreme.
This debate was qualitatively different and more educational because it demonstrated Trump’s complete inability to exercise self-control or restraint. As mentioned, VP Harris laid the bait and set the traps, and Trump unselfconsciously took the bait every single time. He was that one fish in the shallow lake that keeps getting hooked because it sees the worm and thinks only of its own hunger.
There are numerous examples, but I’ll mention just a couple. Remember when VP Harris threw in a dig about people leaving Trump’s rallies early? It was a low blow, an unnecessary comment, but put out there for the specific attempt of drawing Trump into responding. Of course, Trump did exactly what VP Harris expected him to do and wasted precious debate time defending the size of his rallies. Let’s be honest, if Trump had just ignored VP Harris’ snide comments on Trump’s rallies, the whole strategy would have backfired. Harris would have looked petty and mean, and Trump would have appeared mature and controlled. Instead, he did what Harris (and all of us) knew he would do – he attacked Harris rallies and defended his own as “… the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics.” Sure, Don, whatever you say. Instead, of taking the high road (has he ever?), he demonstrated an utter lack of self-control. He placed the fragility of his ego above a cohesive political strategy. Stated another way, he put his own narrow, silly self-interest ahead of his campaign, his constituents and voters.
In a different exchange, Harris pointed out that Trump’s former chief of staff, national security advisor and secretary of defense have all been publicly critical of him. Again, there were a number of ways Trump could have flipped that script. Instead, he bragged about his propensity for firing people (not sure callbacks to the “Reality Star” section of his resume is the best for credibility). Nevermind, that that he hired those people and consistently claims to have the “best people” working for him. How did this exchange even occur? Trump was asked about a border security bill he killed in Congress. His answer was an incoherent rant on immigrants eating cats, which drew a fact check from the moderator. Harris was given time to respond and very deftly took the opportunity to point out how the extreme right-wing rhetoric coming from the Trump/Vance camp has lead to prominent Republicans endorsing her, and Trump’s former staffers acknowledging the danger he represents. Harris hit him where it hurts most – his very delicate, but all-important ego. Instead of raising above, Trump gobbled that hook and incoherently attempted to belittle and insult the very people he had hired.
Let’s be plain, Trump’s inability to exercise even a modicum of self-control should lead any reasonable person to wonder how he could ever successfully represent the United States in negotiations or conflicts with foreign leaders. It was embarrassingly easy to throw him off-topic and into a full-throated, if incoherent, defense of his own self-perceived greatness. His ego is so shockingly fragile that he is completely unable to control himself. How could a man who can’t resist an attack on his “rally size” hold his own with political savvy world leaders?
Trump showed American voters that he is an easy mark. Perhaps more importantly, he showed world leaders, and most concerningly our enemies that outclassing, outmaneuvering and manipulating him is pretty simple. Maybe they already knew. But I can’t recall a moment when it was more perfectly and plainly on display than during that debate.
Whether you agree with him on his politics and policies or not, it is difficult to deny that it doesn’t look like he can hack it. This man cannot be trusted to deal with the Putins, Kim Jong Ils, and the Hu Jintaos of the world because he will be manipulated in their favor with simple appeals to his ego or baited to act rashly by simple attacks on his “rallies.”
A good witness sees the traps and avoids them. A good negotiator ignores the extraneous and irrelevant details to get toward the heart of an issue. A good President when performing their duties as Commander in Chief, and the country’s principal ambassador sets their ego entirely to the side and pursues the collective interests of the people of the United States.
