I wrote this first to argue that Kamala should withdraw her demand for open mics. Then just last night it was reported that she had reluctantly agreed to proceed with the rules that mics would be muted when it was not the candidates’ turn to speak. Which, according to my sense of things, is likely a good thing.
************************
When I heard that there was a controversy between the Trump and Harris camps about whether the microphones at the September 10 debate would be turned off or left on when it was the other candidate’s time to talk, I just assumed that it was the Trump people who wanted the mics hot.
Muting the mics was one of Biden’s conditions for the debate. And I thought that a good move. But I could readily believe that Trump would want to remove all restrictions on his behavior, as he shows all the time in all kinds of ways. (This is the guy who gets Gag Orders from judges, because his lawlessness endangers people. He doesn’t want anyone to tell him to keep his mouth shut.)
Then I found out that it was just the opposite: where Biden had wanted Trump muted, Kamala wanted Trump’s mic to be live the whole time.
That immediately struck me as strange. I had difficulty imagining how Kamala’s team was thinking it would work to their advantage for Trump’s mic to be on continuously.
Ever since 2015, we’ve been seeing Trump dominate debates, in various ugly ways, starting with the intramural Republican debates and going on to the debates with his Democratic opponents, where
- We saw Trump loom over Hillary (leaving her to say much later that she wished she’d wheeled on him and command him to “Back off,” calling him a “creep!”
- And we saw that debate with Biden where Trump was more rude and domineering than one would ever have guessed we’d ever see a presidential candidate — so smothering of Biden’s efforts to speak that even the perennially congenial Biden felt compelled to tell him, with exasperation, to “shut up?!”
Both of those were disturbing and painful to watch. And while Trump looked terrible, it was not clear that he hurt himself in the political battle.
But if Kamala’s people were seeking hot mics, did that mean they’ve got some surefire way of turning Trump’s offensive conduct to their advantage? (I’ve read journalists saying the idea has been to provoke Trump into making himself look really bad in one way or another.)
Maybe they sought the hot mics because they’ve worked out a set of moves that would leave Kamala triumphant over the misbehaving Trump.
That would be great. And maybe they did have some really good plan, as I concede the record of their strategic decisions has been pretty impressive. (From their orchestration of a magnificent national convention to the rhetorical jabs of “I know his type” to “Say it to my face.”)
But it seems more likely that the hot mike would hurt Kamala, as it would open the way for him to behave badly and profit by it. That’s because — with Trump — the important thing is not that he behaves in an acceptable way, but whether he dominates the battle.
Trump has dominated every debate stage he’s been on. However disgraceful we judge his performance to be, it always has had the effect of making him look bigger and stronger than his opponent.
What impressed me the most about the opening days of Kamala’s campaign is that she made him look smaller and weaker, rather than relating to his power to harm. (See youtube.com/...)
This is a good strategy because what most binds Trump’s supporters to him seems to be their perception of him as dominant. They love him as long as he seems larger-than-life, and so long as he continually fights and wins against his and their enemies.
I can’t think of any way Kamala could prevent Trump — if he used his hot mic opportunities — from looking dominant. I can’t think of any scenario worth the risk that he’ll look so strong that he wins more votes, while Kamala has no recourse against a man willing to behave as badly as when he loomed over Hillary (and made disgusting remarks about her when she went to the rest room during a break), and willing to shout over Biden like he did.
If a hot mic would have given Trump a way of looking rude-but-dominant, then it makes a lot more sense to make sure use every available rule to compel him to play by rules. Muting the mic enforces the rule that candidates take turns speaking. And such “taking turns” will give Kamala the space to speak to the American people the way she wants to.
Muting mics is a way of creating order to contain this lawless man. In the debate, each will be compelled to respect the rules made for fairness. Mics turned off to assure they take turns means that fairness will be enforced. And fairness means that Trump doesn’t get to dominate by ugly behavior.
I’ve watched Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden all share a debate stage with Donald Trump. Clearly, it is difficult to get the upper hand against a man so unconstrained as Trump.
I can believe that Kamala has the ability to go toe-to-toe with Trump and come out on top. She’s shown such abilities in various forums. But the cold mics would give her a playing field more to her advantage than the hot mics she sought.