Early on in the Presidential Debate on Sept. 10, in response to Donald Trump, Kamala Harris said, “In this debate tonight, you’re going to hear from the same old tired playbook, a bunch of lies, grievances, and name-calling.”

Trump’s repetitive motto, “Make America Great Again,” seems inherently steeped in oppressive values. His points in the presidential debate against Vice President Harris were the same, divisive lines he has used over and over again during his presidential campaign and prior presidency— without factual evidence to back his claims. And Harris, while taking a far more rational and intellectual approach, still managed to evade specifics of her plans in many of her responses. 

Amy Kittelstrom, a history professor at Sonoma State, said at a recent panel discussion on campus, “A chilling fact of American history is that we never resolved the Civil War, actually. And we, the people of the United States, allowed the most treasonous, seditious rebels in American history to resume positions of power, influence, and wealth, and we are seeing the legacy of that failure dividing our country today.” 

Immigration policy

Trump’s obsessive fixation with tying immigration into every issue brought up, whether the economy, abortion, or climate change, showed the world again his draconian views about who is and is not welcome in this country. He consistently criticized and dehumanized migrant people— an ironic take considering this nation was founded on European immigration, colonialism, and exploitation of Indigenous people. What he is saying when he says “Make America Great Again,” is probably more like “Make America White Again.” 

“Trump is relying on racist tropes that activate audiences, [which] reinforce flawed beliefs of race. [He] has continued to fuel white supremacy in loud yet discreet ways since stepping into office,” Josue Chavez, a fourth-year sociology major said. 

Chavez said he felt that Harris also failed to address immigration properly. “The Republican and Democratic parties in the last decade have touched on immigration policy as an issue of ‘we want you, but we don’t want you in this country,’” he said. 

Trump said, as he veered off of his statements on the economy, “We have millions of people pouring into our country from prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums… They are taking over the towns, they’re taking over buildings, they’re going in violently. They’re destroying our country, they’re dangerous, they’re at the highest level of criminality, and we have to get ‘em out, we have to get ‘em out fast.”

The internet has gone wild with memes over one of his claims, which has been widely debunked. He falsely accused immigrants of eating domesticated cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio. His rhetoric echoes racist narratives of our history, like the 1915 film The Birth of a Nation, the concept of Manifest Destiny, or even the Declaration of Independence— all of which claim that non-white people are savage, criminal, and dangerous. 

The false claim that immigrants are eating pets has resulted in bomb threats in the city of Springfield, Ohio. This incident points out the hypocrisy of Trump’s frequent and undue attacks on the news media for “defamation” or inaccuracy. His spreading of a misleading and untrue statement in a very public manner has resulted in undue harm to an entire city, which is ultimately the definition of defamation or hate speech that incites violence, and he should be held accountable.

Overall, racial and political polarization has spiked in the years since Trump was elected as U.S. President in 2016. In contrast, Harris, a woman of color, made attempts to appeal to a more moderate political sphere. 

“When we’re looking at this election of 2024, we’re looking at the most stark ideological difference that we’ve seen since the eve of the civil war,” Kittelstrom said.

Divisive Rhetoric

Aaliyah Glasper, a fourth-year communications and media major at SSU said she was nearly in tears of hope and pride seeing a woman of color on the presidential debate stage. A historic first for our nation. 

“On the Harris side, we commit Americanism— this idea that democracy is the right form of government, that we all share equality in rights and ought to share equality of opportunity, and that our liberties should be protected by the government, rather than infringed,” Kittelstrom said. 

“And then on the other side, we have a blood and soil Nationalism, that is so disturbingly echoing actual Nazi rhetoric. Saying some people have a stake in this country, based on their ancestry, and demonizing immigrants to such a horrific degree, that honest, hard-working, law-abiding people are subject to terrible threats of violence. So the stakes are high, and I hope that my knowledge of the past can help inform where we are today,” Kittelstrom continued.

Abortion

Trump again made misleading or false statements about abortion. He suggested that Democrats support abortion in the 9th month of pregnancy and that Harris’ running mate Tim Walz “says execution after birth is okay;” both points are far from the truth.

He undermined the significance of leaving the issue of abortion up to the states, while Harris pointed out how the overturning of Roe v. Wade takes away a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body in the case of impregnation after rape or incest. And further, Harris highlighted how women in the working class who can barely afford healthcare or childcare, will not be easily able to get on a plane to receive access to abortion if their state denies them this care. 

Economy

On the economy, Trump proposed increased tariffs on foreign goods and claimed that this would bring “billions of dollars” in from China. This plan has been largely criticized by economists, who determined Trump’s higher tariffs would almost certainly increase inflation, transferring costs onto Americans. 

Harris acknowledged the exceedingly unaffordable cost of living and proposed a higher tax credit for young families, while she stated that Trump plans to provide more tax cuts for billionaires and large corporations, “which will result in $5 trillion to our deficit.”

Trump had instated tariffs in his prior presidency which have been in place since he left office in 2020, which “imposed nearly $80 billion worth of new taxes on Americans,” according to the Tax Foundation. Ironic, considering Trump’s followers are regularly accusing the Biden administration of destroying our economy. 

However, when asked why these tariffs have not been removed since Biden took office, Harris evaded the question.

Global Issues, War, Climate Change

What felt most disappointing about this debate, however, was the lack of time or attention devoted to the issues of climate change, and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Both Trump and Harris failed to address the moral atrocity and inhumane treatment of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli government. Harris adamantly defended the right of Israel to defend themselves against the Oct. 7 attack, which largely ignores the longer history between Palestine and Israel and ultimately creates an unsettling notion. Is mass violence committed on civilians considered self-defense, and is it the best solution our government can propose? 

“It used to be that foreign policy wasn’t partisan in the same way as domestic politics, and now it is.” Referring to Trump, Kittelstrom said “We have a party who would let Ukraine get gobbled up by Russia and allow unlimited slaughter of Palestinians for a triumphant Israeli state. We are so intertwined with these global politics in the stakes of this election.”

Chavez said, “Again, both candidates are failing to address the root cause of both climate and the textbook genocidal acts we are seeing today. They blame each other and continue to reinforce their pledge of aiding Israel with billions of dollars,” despite many Americans viewing Israel’s attacks as genocide.

Less than three minutes of the entire 95-minute debate was spent discussing climate change, despite moderator Linsey Davis pointing out that Harris has said climate change is an existential threat. In this limited time, Harris focused on increasing manufacturing plants and domestic gas production, while saying the Biden-Harris administration has invested in clean energy. None of which seemed to address how her administration would reduce carbon emissions. Trump spent his rebuttal focusing on attacking the Biden administration rather than discussing climate change– something he has historically called “a hoax.” 

Emily Ray, a political science professor at Sonoma State said at the panel discussion on campus, “People are not exactly sure where to land in their tremendous dissatisfaction. And some of that dissatisfaction [is about] issues that the candidates are not discussing or they’re changing their mind about. One day they’re in favor of the Green New Deal, the next they’re supporting fracking, and that is a Harris position we should be paying attention to.” 

Hope for our political future

In sum, Trump spent little time ever actually speaking on plans or actions. He devoted most of his talking points to aggressive allegations about how our nation is being destroyed by immigrants and liberals while defending himself. Harris did allow the American public to better understand her values, however a lot was left unsaid. 

Since the debate, a second apparent assassination on Trump’s life occurred on Sunday, Sept. 15. 

“We’ve had these assassination attempts which ought to shock the conscience, just like every school shooting ought to just really rock us. And instead, instantly using it as political fodder. The triumphant mood at the republican convention was a fruit of this assassination attempt, rather than sobriety, self-examination, really reckoning with who we want to be as a nation,” Kittelstrom said.

Chavez said he has fear regarding both candidates and feels the U.S. has “reached the final stage of an unchecked and disorganized democracy.”

“Still, I am hopeful that Kamala Harris will have a change of heart and perspective to be moved by the political power we have as a mass to influence her policy decision-making that is clearly out of touch with the lower, middle class, and international community beyond,” Chavez continued.

David McCuan, a political science professor also said at a recent panel discussion, “If you look at the election today, [Harris] has to be ahead by five points in swing state likely voter polls to have a shot, because of something called gender and racial bias, and she’s got both of those in this election.” 

Chavez said he intends to vote for Harris. “That is because politics has always been like a bus station. We have to choose a bus to take us close to our destination. Yet, we can still reimagine and implement a better system that works for all,” Chavez said. 

“I can finally say as a political science professor at a university, that the folks that are gonna save us are 18 to 34-year-olds, and that’s phenomenal,” McCuan said.