Down goes Frazier, Down goes Frazier (i.e. Trump)
Harris lands the Knockout blow during the debate: But will Trump stay down on the mat? Or might there still be an October surprise ahead?
Sept 10, 2024 was an epic day in global history. The neo-populist disorderer (Trump) was finally beaten ‘at television’ — something Rubio, Cruz, Clinton, and Biden had failed to do over the last 9 years.
In this quick turn around emergency bonus episode of the Disorder Pod, Jason and Alex explain the implications for global order of the first—and possibly only— 2024 Presidential Candidates Debate btw Harris and Trump. (Listen here.)
Taunting and Baiting was a key part of this debate. It wasn’t so much about substance but about style.
It was like a legendary heavyweight boxing match between a woman auditioning to be the mega-orderer-in-chief and the most well established disorderer the world has ever scene. And it ended in a more dramatic fashion than even an epic Howard Cosell play-by-play: Down goes Frazier, Down goes Frazier.
And it was about Harris outperforming expectations (which were quite low, mine as well) and Trump having had high expectations after lambasting Biden at the last debate but imploding.
Why might viewers who expected such an split performance have responded so negatively to Trump and so favourably to Harris?
Trump acknowledged that he cannot go against Putin’s wishes, that he does not want the Ukrainians to win the war; and then when taunted by Kamala about the small ‘crowd-size’ at his rallies, Trump simply imploded: spewing grievance-filled conspiratorial lies about Haitian Migrants eating dogs in Springfield, Ohio, that Democrats order doctors to kill babies after birth, and that the Biden-Harris administration gives transgender transition surgeries to illegal aliens. These unhinged conspiracy theories of Trump may actually be a bridge too far.
Literally it couldn’t have been more decisive. Even Republican outlets — Fox, NY Post, and the WSJ editorial board — acknowledged that Harris had won the debate. They made excuses that the moderators were biased against him but they did not attempt to gaslight the American people on what they had just seen. They embraced the unescapable reality. Harris had beaten Trump at TV. And it wasn’t a TKO it was a KO. Frazier was on the mat, no amount of spin could change that. Trump’s post-debate decision to enter the spin room himself rather than sending a surrogate exposed that he too admitted he had been bested.
We at the Disorder Pod do want you to listen to our episode further breaking down the debate which we consider among our best and don’t want to count chickens before they are hatched, but were both favourably surprised by Kamala’s performance. As we pointed out in Ep 65, she does portray herself in a rigid, prosecutorial vibe and has been weak at explaining the specifics of her programmes. She might play identity cards a bit much for some middle-aged white males. And yet!, Sept 10, 2024 may go down in history as the first time that an opposing politician beat Donald J. Trump at the game of television. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Jeb Bush failed at it in the 2016 Republican Primary. Hillary and Biden may have won debates against him but they never beat him at the game of television. Trump bested all of them using a debating technique known as Gish-galloping. Whereas, Harris countered the Gish-gallop by making Trump look like a buffoon and she successfully baited and taunted him on live TV before tens of millions. She made the contrast extremely clear: that she wishes to Order the American economy and the world, while Trump wishes to Disorder it.
For more Background on Gish-galloping and the role of Presidential debates in actually swaying elections:
Read Alex’s Byline Times Article, ‘A Stumbling Trump Receives a Well-Deserved Shellacking at the First Presidential Debate’: https://bylinetimes.com/2024/09/11/donald-trump-kamala-harris-debate-president-receives-shellacking-at-the-first-presidential-showdown/
Listen to Mehdi Hassan on the Guardian pod explain Gish-Galloping and how Donald Trump’s debate strategy usually works and how it can be (and was defeated):
Listen to the 538 on the history Presidential Debates and how much they have swung the polls in the past:
More on Listener Questions:
Firstly, let me make a special call for listeners question for our anniversary (on Sept 19, 2024 it will be one year since our launch episode which we are recording monday the 16th) therefore if interested pls write us at Disordershow@gmail.com before then.
yes pls keep these coming on twitter and by emailing us and we will feature them here to more create the sense of a communal discussion responding to the migrant discussion in Ep 65.. which you can listen to our take on the migration question and on Harris’s weaknesses with white men from two days ago here:
And here are some genius listener responses clearly from people who have given a lot of thought to this assimilation issue responding to Guillermo’s question:
And in honour of yet more great listeners questions I will share an excellent one from Thomson, Jeffrey of the City University in London pertaining to Harvey Whitehouse’s brilliant episodes on evolutionary biology.
Dear Mr Pack,
I am currently listening to, and very much enjoying your podcast with Harvey Whitehouse. (I am also a regular listener to the Disorder pod: keep up the good work!)
One aspect of Prof Whitehouse’s research that surprises me, as a lawyer / law teacher, relates to two notable absences from the seven universal moral virtues he identified, namely:
1. Honesty, and
2. Keeping promises.
Is there a specific place in his research where he comments on these omissions? I should have thought that both would also be universal, because both are important for collaborative work.
Thanks again for the pods!
Jeffrey Thomson
and now Harvey Whitehouse’s response (you might want to listen to the both parts of the two part ep first if you haven’t here):
Keeping promises falls under reciprocity (one of the seven cooperative rules judged morally good everywhere) - along with things like paying debts, honouring contracts, feeling grateful etc. But I agree with Jeffrey Thomson that ’telling the truth' might be an eighth universal cooperative rule - and there could be more. We acknowledged these points in our paper:
“the study investigated the moral valence of only seven cooperative
behaviors—it did not investigate the moral valence or prevalence
of the other cooperative traits encompassed by morality-as-
cooperation (such as forgiveness or generosity). And it
remains to be seen whether the theory can be extended to
provide cooperative explanations of other moral phenomena,
including those encountered in this ethnographic review—
industry and laziness, truth-telling and honesty, chastity and
fidelity, hospitality and gossip, the virtues expected of a leader,
some forms of purity, and the behavior expected by gods,
spirits, and ancestors.”
It’s possible that Oliver has done more work to expand the number of cooperative behaviours judged morally good everywhere - I should ask him. He had a new paper out this year in Heliyon largely corroborating our findings in the attached but it was focusing again on the seven moral rules, just with a larger sample and a fancier (mechanised) method of coding.
Hope useful!
All best,
Harvey
Now For Paid Subscribers only here are some videos of Jason’s favourite moments of the debate with a tiny bit of his spontaneous while watching commentary:
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Ordering the Disorder to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.