‘No one who will try to subvert the results of an honest election deserves to be allowed to run in the first place. But since he wasn’t disqualified, let the voters disqualify him.’

AS a political junkie, I made sure that the Trump-Harris debate was not going to happen without me monitoring the proceedings. Even though I was attending a board-level strategy session, I was able during break times to sneak a peek at live feeds as well as monitor live commentary.

And when I finally had time to watch the whole 120 or so minutes of sometimes testy exchanges between the candidates, I came away satisfied for one very important reason.

I do not doubt that the debate made the choices before the American voters very stark. I cannot imagine anyone watching the debate objectively and coming away still confused about what each candidate stood for – or against. For me, the contrast was made stark by the very answers given – whether it was a dodge PR or an outright lie.

But yes, in a way this election of 2024 has a small but significant twist.

For the Democrats and their sympathizers (including non-US citizens like myself), Kamala Harris’ debate performance served to cement their faith in her as their standard bearer and in the general platform of the party. Joe Biden’s decision to abandon his re-election campaign may have generated (at least for a while) a division within the party, because, unlike the Presidency of the United States itself, there was no “clear line of succession”: delegates during the primaries were pledged to Biden and Biden alone, and who they would gravitate towards now was in some respects truly an open question.

Biden had two clear choices: to free his delegates to vote as they wished, potentially triggering a contested convention, or endorse someone to take his place and urge his delegates to respect his choice, in the process giving that choice the nomination almost outright.

So when Biden quickly endorsed his Vice President to take his place it closed the door on a messy contested convention. It allowed party leaders and members to fall in line. It sent a clear message to supporters and donors about what the way toward was. And yes, it unburdened the party of significant baggage – questions about Biden’s mental and physical health and focus on his advanced age.

Kamala’s debate performance shut the door on the last remaining questions about her ability to rise to the occasion of a presidential campaign.

For the Republicans, the exact opposite is what is happening. While Trump’s ascendancy that began in 2016 came as a surprise to the establishment of the party, he soon moved in to take over most members of the party organization from the federal level (the RNC) down to the state level. It was a rejuvenated party that pulled off a surprise in 2016 with Trump’s upset of Hillary Clinton. But Trump’s election and his exercise of power while in the White House exacerbated the “never Trump” or “anybody but Trump” sentiment in the party that as late as the 2024 primaries was pinning their hopes on Nikki Haley.

As November 2024 approaches, that rift has risen to the surface. There is an active “Republicans for Harris” organization that is campaigning nationwide for like-minded party members to vote for Harris as a way of voting to save their party. They argue that one way to revive the party of old is to put an end to Trump once and forever. And if that meant taking a “country over party” position (sounds like Manuel Quezon, doesn’t it?) then so be it.

And for the Republicans, that is the twist. Those who can separate Trump from the party may opt to stay home or, as some prominent Republicans, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, argue, vote outright for Harris. Either way, it’s a big issue for Trump.

For me as an observer, there was one question that would have been the basis for my voting for Harris had I been an independent voter. And that was Trump’s refusal to take responsibility for the January 6, 2021 insurrection which he instigated, an attempt by a mob to take over the US Capitol to stop the certification of the November 2020 election results that Trump had lost. The former president tried to minimize his role in the events for which he has been indicted by a grand jury: he had only been invited to give a speech, he said, and he had urged the people to walk peacefully to the Capitol.

Review the footage of January 6 and you cannot come to any other conclusion than that Trump was indeed inciting his followers to attack the Capitol. “You will not have a country,” he told them if they didn’t show strength. And then, of course, there were his taunts directed at his Vice President, whom Trump insisted should not certify the election results.

No wonder the mob at the Capitol was chanting “Hang Mike Pence” once they found out that Pence refused to violate his oath of office.

The debate should have settled once and for all that the choice cannot be more stark, that all things being equal, America will be better off electing the very first woman to occupy the Oval Office.

But all things are not equal. January 6 was a disqualifier. No one who will try to subvert the results of an honest election deserves to be allowed to run in the first place. But since he wasn’t disqualified, let the voters disqualify him.