“Perhaps the most memorable moment of the debate was before any question was asked. She took the initiative and walked across the stage to shake his hand… From that starting moment to the final word she was always in control.” HUGH SELBY reflects on the presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.

Hide and seek is a children’s game: some kids hide, and others seek them out. There’s usually a lot of laughter. When everyone is found the seekers become the hiders, the hiders become the seekers. More laughter.

Hide and Seek is also the clever name of a thriving café in North Lyneham. The idea is that: “We’re hidden away, off the main thoroughfares, but seek us out and you’ll be happy”.

Of course, to those who have once been there the café is “hiding in plain sight”.

I went there this morning to watch and listen to the debate between the two US presidential aspirants. I could have watched it in the silence of my home, but this was a debate about the future of western democracy and therefore it had to be experienced as it was happening, and among those who are lucky enough to live under democratic norms.

There was no audience in the debating space, just the two candidates and two interviewers. The four of them were talking to us, an invisible audience.

At the café we were all visible to each other, an eclectic mix of ages, skins and beliefs: teenagers chatted and laughed and held up images on their phones, oblivious to what their futures might be; young mothers with prams were able to move the tables and get comfortable while handling the impromptu, but noisy demands that came from infants; retirees too chatted and smiled – but more likely about being glad to still be able to get about, to have access to health care, exercise classes and good coffee; tradies and local business operators dropped in for take away and, while waiting, chatted among themselves and with the owner; and, staff and customers dealt compassionately with a young adult woman who had psychiatric issues that looked and sounded to be long term.

Politicians delight in answering their own questions

From start to finish the two interviewers asked simple, easy-to-understand questions about such important, topical issues as: health care; managing immigration into the US; how to respond to climate change; the US’s international role in conflicts such as Gaza, the Ukraine, Afghanistan; the aftermath of the last presidential election – most notably the storming of the Congress building; the future of the US economy; and, abortion and IVF.

Politicians delight in answering their own questions, rather than those that are asked. We expect that. 

An interview is an opportunity to push an agenda, no matter what the interview is about. Some interviewers are sufficiently thick skinned to repeat their unanswered questions. To their credit this happened several times – but to no avail. 

No matter what the question his non-responsive answer drew upon these components: attack her and Biden at the personal level, extol his greatness; emphasise the decline of the US; blame others (eg former advisers, military personnel, other politicians) for any errors, blame recent immigrants for a claimed crime wave, loss of jobs, and mental health crisis; debunk the Affordable Health Act, but refuse to say how he’d improve it; twist and turn and twist again on the abortion issue; be evasive on how he’d handle the Ukraine and Gaza conflicts, and, still claim that he won the last election.

His message was negative, divisive, inflammatory, devoid of clear policy, and backward looking. He delights in invention. He never looked straight into the camera. He claims to love his rallies and the folks that attend, yet despite all his years on television and in the public eye he can’t look his audience of millions straight on. 

While he looked down and away she looked often at us

She too used personal attack, but with this difference: she used facts, not hyperbole and invention.

Where he looked back, she looked to the future.

Where he whined and sprayed, she had something specific to say about what she would do over such issues as housing, health care, women’s reproductive rights, responding to climate change. 

While he looked down and away she looked often at us, the audience, and she addressed us all, making it clear that we were her audience, that we mattered to her.

She kept saying that our focus, and hers, must be on a better future, that it was a leader’s job to solve problems, not to create them.

The eternal fight between good and evil, between the values of inclusivity and exclusivity, between sharing and greed, between freedom and oppression, was hiding in plain sight in this debate. 

There are many who see such tales as Lord of the Rings or the Harry Potter saga as just that, tales. They are parables that remind us of how easy it is for those who would destroy democracy to subvert our ideals and lead many astray.

Perhaps the most memorable moment of the debate was before any question was asked. He and she walked on to the stage. She took the initiative and walked across the stage to shake his hand.

From that starting moment to the final word she was always in control. She, not he, had better be our future. That’s if we want to laugh in 2025.