At this stage in the proceedings, it feels almost churlish to write earnestly about the public-policy implications of the coming presidential election. In Kamala Harris, we have a candidate who will commit to nothing lest she is subjected to a follow-up question; in Donald Trump, we have a candidate so determined to discharge his every thought that there is no time left for his auditors to speak. As an old-fashioned “issues” voter, I am not sure which is more annoying: that Kamala Harris answers every inquiry by talking distractedly about the sanctity of middle-class grass, or that Donald Trump promulgates novel positions with the fecundity of a sunfish. Irrespective, the spectacle is an unedifying one.
Some cynics argue that none of this matters. We have two teams in America, they observe, and what counts is which one you’re on. Politics, they insist, is painted in broader strokes than a crisp manifesto can allow. One party is For; the other is Against; the details that result from this dichotomy will be worked out in the wash.
Comments