A New York Times/Sienna College poll this weekend suggested that the presidential race was tightening (again) and that while a vast majority of voters generally felt comfortable with Democratic nominee Kamala Harris’ character, as we think they should, some 63% of those polled said they need to know more about her policies.
We agree. We’d like to know a whole lot more too. And we hope Tuesday’s debate, the only joint and unscripted appearance currently scheduled between Vice President Harris and her Republican opponent, former President Donald Trump, will provide some answers. But given Harris’ strategy so far, that will depend on what is asked and how aggressively the debate moderators, ABC’s David Muir and Linsey Davis, follow up.
It won’t be an easy job.
Dana Bash, CNN’s admirable chief political correspondent and the experienced journalist who scored the first (and so far only) joint interview with Harris and her running mate, Tim Walz, made some telling remarks in a video interview with Mediaite (posted Saturday) about the great difficulty of getting straight answers when politicians prefer to answer the question they wanted, rather than the one actually being asked. Clearly, she was frustrated by the level of Harris obfuscation and the need to keep asking the same question in the hope of getting a relevant answer.
“Sometimes, in my experience in doing interviews,” Bash said, “is that once you ask once, fine. Twice, fine. Three times, if you don’t get a clear answer, that’s kind of your answer.”
Indeed. And not a good one.
Bash also noted that debate moderators have limited amounts of time. To keep going after an evasive answer by asking the same question six ways from Sunday means throwing out much else of import on the docket, thus doing voters a disservice by limiting the scope of the debate.
Take, as an example, the issue of immigration. There are many other areas, but that’s a matter of utmost importance to most voters. Along with the economy and abortion, it’s at the top of voter concerns, the recent poll found. And yet both candidates have not answered clearly as to what they would do.
When U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in 2022 that his aim was to “get a path to citizenship for all 11 million or however many undocumented there are here,” he was being clear.
There is a good argument for this: We’ve said time and again that America needs more workers. Back in March, Brian Moynihan, CEO of Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America, met with us and said much the same thing.
But there also is a big downside. The U.S. has immigration laws and many people have, for decades, done the right thing and jumped through one hoop after another, all in the hope of moving here to live and work legally. Thousands of officials spend their working days (and nights) enforcing these laws, often at personal risk.
If everyone gets a free pass, then that makes fools of those who followed the law and acts as a disincentive to anyone doing so in the future. Immigration laws are still laws. Assuming it’s ongoing, and why would you think otherwise, Schumer’s blanket amnesty is de facto open borders, or at least open to anyone who can get past border control.
Does Harris agree with Schumer?
Many progressives do not support any kind of criminal penalties for anyone who bypasses immigration regulations. Does Harris?
“A path to citizenship” is slippery language, too. Would Harris really deport or support criminal penalties for those who fall off whatever path that may be? And will a gate immediately close behind that path? How?
So far, she has not wanted to say, beyond expressing support for the failed bipartisan compromise bill that gave neither side what it wanted, because she knows that specifics will come with a political price. But in a debate, specifics are what Americans are entitled to hear.
Trump, on the other hand, has said he will bring about mass deportations, a policy that very few, maybe even including Trump himself, see as even remotely practical, let alone humane. One can only imagine the chaos and the human agony. Lots of Americans who say they do not support open borders also don’t want to be responsible for causing families to be ripped apart.
“And ya know getting them out will be a bloody story,” Trump said this past weekend. “(Undocumented immigrants) should have never been allowed to come into our country. Nobody checked them.”
Even if you agree with the last part of that quote, as most Americans do, that horse has bolted already and the first part is shocking. What does Trump mean by a “bloody story”? Is he merely being rhetorical? Or does he now plan to drop federal agents into neighborhoods of cities like Chicago and rip limbs from limbs?
Has he made a plan for what surely would be potentially violent resistance and social unrest? Is he going to ask police officers or the men and women of the National Guards to go house to house, taking people away? Does he really believe America would witness that scenario and still retain its optimistic, welcoming spirit?
Trump, who torpedoed the compromise for his own political benefit, simply should not be allowed to drop that kind of red-meat rhetoric into a campaign event without being asked in a debate for what, precisely, he intends to do. When? Where? To whom? How fast? At what price?
We’re not confident that fresh, honest thinking on this or on, as another example, the rise of economic protectionism among both Democrats and Republicans, will be forthcoming Tuesday. But the moderators should demand it and not just once. Two or three times is fine with us.
And with all due respect to Bash, it’s not just about repeating questions. It’s about how these questions are asked and how rigorously the moderators insist on answers. Politicians love nebulous generalities. Debate moderators should wrestle them to the ground.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.