US Presidential Candidate Debate: Harris Explains Based On Facts, Trump Follows Emotions And Political Interests

By Rohani Mohd Ibrahim, Wan Muhammad Aslah Wan Razali & Noor Bakhtiar Ahmad

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 11 (Bernama) -- The debate between the US presidential candidates on Tuesday showcased a stark contrast in their approaches. Democratic candidate Kamala Harris argued based on facts and displayed caution, while Republican candidate Donald Trump operated from a place of emotion and political interest.

This perspective comes from Dr. Azmi Hasan, a geostrategist and Senior Fellow at the Nusantara Academy for Strategic Research. He noted that the debate between Harris, the current US Vice President, and Trump, the former president, could influence the upcoming US presidential election on November 5.

bootstrap slideshow

Azmi pointed out the differences in their stances on the Israel-Palestine issue. Harris was seen as more articulate in her support for Israel, especially concerning the international perspective on the issue, while also showing "some sympathy" for the suffering of Gaza's residents.

“Perhaps because she (Harris) is a former Attorney General of California, she argues based on facts. Trump, on the other hand, argues from a standpoint of emotion and his own political interests... Trump has never expressed sorrow over the disaster in Gaza,” Azmi said on Wednesday.

According to Azmi, Trump's emotionally driven, and politically motivated stance was evident during his previous debate with President Joe Biden, where Trump criticised Biden’s handling of the Israel-Palestine conflict and claimed that Hamas would be eliminated if he (Trump) were president.

Meanwhile, James Chin of the University of Tasmania said Trump primarily addressed his established base, while Harris targeted her messages towards undecided voters.

"Harris did a better job than Trump, even in terms of body language. Trump came across as aggressive and angry, whereas Kamala appeared calmer, more reserved, and emotionally stable," he said.

Chin offered two key takeaways for Malaysian audiences from the debate. First, he emphasised the significance of high-level political debates.

"In Malaysia, we’re not used to this sort of high-level political debate," he said, suggesting that such debates could enhance the political landscape in Malaysia.

Secondly, he pointed out the inward focus of the debate, indicating a shift in US foreign policy. 

"It is quite obvious that the US is turning more towards itself. During the debate, foreign policy was not a major topic. Everything was about the US, its recovery, and its economy," he said.

He noted that this inward turn suggests a broader trend towards isolationism. 

"America is entering an isolationist mode rather than projecting itself as a world power," he pointed out that it is a shift particularly noteworthy for Malaysians, as it reflects changing global dynamics.

Chin also observed a declining interest among Malaysians in US politics compared to two decades ago. 

"If we had done this analysis about 20 years ago, there would be a lot more interest from Malaysians in presidential debates in the US," he said. 

Meanwhile, the Deputy Executive Director of the Asia-Europe Institute (AEI) at Universiti Malaya, Associate Professor Dr Roy Anthony Rogers said  the  presidential debate between Trump and Harris reflects contrasting leadership styles, with both candidates staying true to their respective personas.

Associate Professor Dr Roy Anthony Rogers, the Deputy Executive Director of the Asia-Europe Institute (AEI) at Universiti Malaya said the highly anticipated political debate showcased their distinct styles and positions on key national and international issues.

“In my view, both have performed well according to their own styles. Trump displayed his typical hawkish and bold approach, while Kamala Harris remained calm and composed,” he told Bernama.

Roy said various issues were discussed, including the economy, the cost of living, and job creation for Americans; however, he believes more topics could have been included.

'I believe both candidates did not fully address the options available to resolve the crisis in West Asia, particularly the Gaza conflict,' he said.

Regarding the debate's long-term impact, Roy believes it is an integral part of the established political culture in the US.

“The debate serves as a platform within the political culture of the US to assess candidates' abilities to present their plans to the public and persuade voters,” he stated.

— BERNAMA