Key Moments and Impact of the Harris-Trump Debate
On Sept. 10, 2024, presidential candidates Vice President Kamala Harris and Former President Donald Trump took the stage at the Constitutional Convention Center in Philadelphia, Pa. The battle will likely be the only debate among the two before the Nov. 5 election. Both candidates presented starkly contrasting visions for the future of the country, most notably regarding the economy, abortion laws and immigration struggles. These visions may be huge factors in determining the outcome of the 2024 election. It is important to note that in a closely contested presidential race, the stakes of each candidate’s debate performance are significantly higher. So, let’s engage in a deeper dive of the major policy proposals that emerged during the dynamic debate.
Economy: Opportunity vs. Deregulation
The first issue that was brought to the debate floor is perhaps one of the most important to the American people– the economy. Harris quickly highlighted her plans for such under the broad idea of an “opportunity economy.” She articulated that the first steps of her administration’s vision would be to implement concepts such as a $6,000 child tax credit, a $50,000 tax deduction to small business start-ups, and a $25,000 down payment aid for first-time home buyers. These ideas are not necessarily new, and, in fact, correlate with the consistency of her economic plans under the Biden administration. For instance, as vice president, Harris has been a strong advocate for direct financial relief to families, economic support for small businesses, and measures to reduce economic inequality. Her proposed policies echo the administration’s efforts aimed at building economic resilience and fostering equal opportunities across different communities.
“She framed the issue as one of personal freedom and privacy, underscoring her belief that decisions about reproductive health should be made by individuals, not imposed by government authorities.”
As for the former president, he continued to push the idea of a national sales tax as instrumental. Specifically, Trump mentioned tariffs up to 20% on all imports from China and other foreign states. Trump emphasized the importance of deregulation and tax cuts to spur economic growth, pointing to the success of his 2017 tax reforms as a model for future policy. He argued that a national sales tax would simplify the tax code, reduce reliance on income taxes and incentivize businesses to invest domestically, potentially creating more jobs.
Both candidates portrayed their economic strategies as crucial to strengthening American life, but through sharply different approaches. Harris focused on targeted relief and investment in working families, while Trump advocated for lower taxes and increased tariffs to protect American industries.
Abortion: State Control vs. National Protections
Next up was the conversation on abortion and women’s rights. Here, Trump focused on keeping “the return of power,” in terms of abortion, back to the states, as it is the “hub of the people’s vote.” However, this concept of a “hub” or center of voice can be misinterpreted, as Political Scientist and Professor Ross Dardani, Ph.D., states, “He is definitely being disingenuous…especially when he makes the claim everybody wanted [Roe v. Wade overturned]. When in reality it is just the opposite.” Dardani suggests that Trump’s portrayal of the situation overlooks the widespread national division on the issue and ignores the fact that a substantial majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in most circumstances up to viability.
On the other hand, the vice president suggested ambitions to reinstate the protections granted under Roe v. Wade, claiming that “one does not need to abandon faith to agree that the government should not tell a woman what to do with her body.” She framed the issue as one of personal freedom and privacy, underscoring her belief that decisions about reproductive health should be made by individuals, not imposed by government authorities.
Once again, the discussion on abortion revealed stark contrasts: Trump doubled down on returning abortion decisions to the states, a stance criticized by Dardani as ignoring widespread national support for Roe’s overarching framework. While Vice President Harris advocated for reinstating the doctrine of Roe v. Wade, she emphasized that personal faith should not dictate government policies on reproductive rights, framing the issue as a matter of individual freedom and privacy.
Immigration: Border Strategy vs. Mass Deportation
The candidates then discussed immigration and the United States border. Harris stressed the fact that she has, and will continue to be, a proponent of the Border Security Bill. This is a bill that would send 1,5000 more agents to the border and consequently try to dampen the fentanyl epidemic of the nation. Moreover, Harris wants to continue to prosecute transnational criminal organizations for crimes such as kidnapping and drug trafficking.
Within the allotted time to speak on the issue, the former president did not express much policy towards solving the issue of immigration. However, he did mention throughout the entire debate, and especially during this portion, that he plans to utilize “local police” to conduct a mass deportation of upwards of 11 million illegal immigrants. Moreover, Trump continuously weaponized the issue of immigration to attempt to highlight flaws of the current Biden/Harris administration.
“Harris’s proposals aim to build on existing policies with targeted investments and protections, reflecting her commitment to social and economic reforms. In contrast, Trump’s plans emphasize deregulation, tax cuts and a hardline stance on immigration, signaling a return to his previous administration’s strategies.”
So, where does this leave us? Well, with a recurring question of the American people, “Why hasn’t Vice President Harris solved these issues yet?” There are a multitude of answers to this very question. The first being that the Harris and the Biden administration have attempted to push support for immigration relief [the Border Security Bill], but it was met with strong republican resistance in the Senate. Second, as Political Scientist and Professor Lindsay Burt, Ph.D., states, “there has been both a miscategorization and weaponization of Vice President Harris’s role with respect to immigration. The task she was charged with was to understand the root causes of what was driving migration from South and Central America to the United States, not to necessarily be the border czar.” Suggesting there is potential for Harris to positively impact the crisis at the border if she wins the presidency. However, such an impact is contingent upon the third and most important point–that any president and administration needs a supermajority in order to execute their policies efficiently within our governmental construct. Such being highlighted by Burt’s agreement with Dardani’s statement: “It is difficult to have transformational federal policies…you need not just control of both chambers of congress, but also supermajorities, particularly in the Senate.” In the end, the ability to address these complex issues is deeply tied to the political landscape and the level of legislative support an administration can command.
The Future: Voters’ Choice
As the Nov. 5 election approaches, the contrasting visions of Vice President Harris and Former President Trump highlight the critical choice facing American voters on election day. Harris’s proposals aim to build on existing policies with targeted investments and protections, reflecting her commitment to social and economic reforms. In contrast, Trump’s plans emphasize deregulation, tax cuts and a hardline stance on immigration, signaling a return to his previous administration’s strategies. Hence, it is important to note that when judging both these candidates, it is essential to, in the words of Burt, “not necessarily look for a candidate that resembles change as we commonly define it, but rather one that addresses specific voter issues and connects with the American people because that is what we mean in part when we utilize the language of change.”