Harris&Trump debate is a reminder that insecure white masculinity is dangerous
The September 10 debate between Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump was a referendum on gender and the U.S. presidency—Trump’s, that is. During the past decade, U.S. voters have watched as Trump’s toxic masculinity—a particular version of masculinity that discourages empathy, expresses strength through dominance, normalizes violence against women, and associates leadership with white patriarchy—took over the Republican Party, was celebrated by tech bros with outsize cultural influence, and was matched by authoritarian political leaders around the globe. Harris’s shrewd debate strategy, however, prompted Trump to morph on stage, from an aggressive and aggrieved showman-provocateur to an insecure and angry white man. As a communication scholar who studies gender and the U.S. presidency, I am often asked by journalists to comment on women candidates’ fitness for presidential office. I’m rarely asked to comment on how some versions of masculinity might—or should—be disqualifying for a presidential candidate. When Harris triggered Trump’s insecurity by questioning his popularity and political prowess, his responses were narcissistic, racist, and occasionally unhinged from reality. Trump’s performance in the debate against Harris demonstrates not only that white male insecurity is a strategic liability but also a threat to democracy. “She should bait him. He can be rattled.” For most of Trump’s political career, academic and journalistic critiques of his persona have emphasized his masculine excesses—penchants for patriarchal authority, a pattern of sexual entitlement, and a domineering disposition. Scholars consulted by The Washington Post in advance of the debate speculated that Trump might come across as a bully, as he did when he debated Hillary Clinton in 2016 and, at times, followed her around the stage. After that debate, The Guardian described Trump “prowling” behind Clinton as she spoke and “menacing” her with his “imposing presence and brash insults.” Clinton later said that while she was not intimidated by Trump looming over her, she wanted to “present a composed face to the world.” Although voters accept indignation and even righteous rage from men politicians, some think that a woman politician having an outburst shows her “entitlement and unlikability,” taking it as “evidence of the kind of thin skin that people insist makes a woman unsuitable for the presidency.” But Clinton’s experience positioned her to give Harris an important piece of advice in advance of the Septembe 10 debate, advice she repeated to The New York Times: “She should bait him. He can be rattled.” Since the Harris campaign quickly coalesced in July, it has done just that. The campaign has trolled Trump with provocative political ads, posted clips on social media of people yawning at Trump’s rallies, and allowed the Democratic National Committee to project Harris running mate Tim Walz’s charge that Trump and his own running mate, JD Vance, are “WEIRD AS HELL” on Trump Tower in Chicago. During the debate, Harris taunted Trump to his face, asserting that “people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom.” After laying the bait, Harris addressed the audience, saying, “And I will tell you the one thing you will not hear him talk about is you. You will not hear him talk about your needs, your dreams and your, your desires.” She concluded her point by promising, “I believe you deserve a president who actually puts you first. And I pledge to you that I will.” Most politicians would recognize Harris’s obvious rhetorical trap as a ploy to prove her point that Trump cares more about himself than the voters. But an agitated Trump blustered right into it. After ABC moderator David Muir invited Trump to explain why he killed a bipartisan bill aimed at bolstering security on the Southern border, Trump replied, “First let me respond as to the rallies. She said people start leaving. People don’t go to her rallies. There’s no reason to go. And the people that do go, she’s busing them in and paying them to be there. And then showing them in a different light. So, she can’t talk about that. People don’t leave my rallies. We have the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics.” Trump’s hyperbolic response demonstrated how his own insecurity about his rallies’ crowd size left him open to manipulation by his opponent. Later in the debate, Harris reminded the audience that she wasn’t the only one who could manipulate Trump, and she suggested that this vulnerability could jeopardize American security. She claimed, “It is absolutely well known that these dictators and autocrats are rooting for you to be president again because they’re so clear, they can manipulate you with flattery and favors.” Russian President Vladimir Putin, Harris told Trump, “would eat you for lunch.” Scapegoating the
Tomas Kauer - News Moderator 
The September 10 debate between Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump was a referendum on gender and the U.S. presidency—Trump’s, that is.
During the past decade, U.S. voters have watched as Trump’s toxic masculinity—a particular version of masculinity that discourages empathy, expresses strength through dominance, normalizes violence against women, and associates leadership with white patriarchy—took over the Republican Party, was celebrated by tech bros with outsize cultural influence, and was matched by authoritarian political leaders around the globe.
Harris’s shrewd debate strategy, however, prompted Trump to morph on stage, from an aggressive and aggrieved showman-provocateur to an insecure and angry white man.
As a communication scholar who studies gender and the U.S. presidency, I am often asked by journalists to comment on women candidates’ fitness for presidential office. I’m rarely asked to comment on how some versions of masculinity might—or should—be disqualifying for a presidential candidate.
When Harris triggered Trump’s insecurity by questioning his popularity and political prowess, his responses were narcissistic, racist, and occasionally unhinged from reality.
Trump’s performance in the debate against Harris demonstrates not only that white male insecurity is a strategic liability but also a threat to democracy.
“She should bait him. He can be rattled.”
For most of Trump’s political career, academic and journalistic critiques of his persona have emphasized his masculine excesses—penchants for patriarchal authority, a pattern of sexual entitlement, and a domineering disposition.
Scholars consulted by The Washington Post in advance of the debate speculated that Trump might come across as a bully, as he did when he debated Hillary Clinton in 2016 and, at times, followed her around the stage.
After that debate, The Guardian described Trump “prowling” behind Clinton as she spoke and “menacing” her with his “imposing presence and brash insults.”
Clinton later said that while she was not intimidated by Trump looming over her, she wanted to “present a composed face to the world.” Although voters accept indignation and even righteous rage from men politicians, some think that a woman politician having an outburst shows her “entitlement and unlikability,” taking it as “evidence of the kind of thin skin that people insist makes a woman unsuitable for the presidency.”
But Clinton’s experience positioned her to give Harris an important piece of advice in advance of the Septembe 10 debate, advice she repeated to The New York Times: “She should bait him. He can be rattled.”
Since the Harris campaign quickly coalesced in July, it has done just that. The campaign has trolled Trump with provocative political ads, posted clips on social media of people yawning at Trump’s rallies, and allowed the Democratic National Committee to project Harris running mate Tim Walz’s charge that Trump and his own running mate, JD Vance, are “WEIRD AS HELL” on Trump Tower in Chicago.
During the debate, Harris taunted Trump to his face, asserting that “people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom.”
After laying the bait, Harris addressed the audience, saying, “And I will tell you the one thing you will not hear him talk about is you. You will not hear him talk about your needs, your dreams and your, your desires.” She concluded her point by promising, “I believe you deserve a president who actually puts you first. And I pledge to you that I will.”
Most politicians would recognize Harris’s obvious rhetorical trap as a ploy to prove her point that Trump cares more about himself than the voters. But an agitated Trump blustered right into it.
After ABC moderator David Muir invited Trump to explain why he killed a bipartisan bill aimed at bolstering security on the Southern border, Trump replied, “First let me respond as to the rallies. She said people start leaving. People don’t go to her rallies. There’s no reason to go. And the people that do go, she’s busing them in and paying them to be there. And then showing them in a different light. So, she can’t talk about that. People don’t leave my rallies. We have the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics.”
Trump’s hyperbolic response demonstrated how his own insecurity about his rallies’ crowd size left him open to manipulation by his opponent.
Later in the debate, Harris reminded the audience that she wasn’t the only one who could manipulate Trump, and she suggested that this vulnerability could jeopardize American security. She claimed, “It is absolutely well known that these dictators and autocrats are rooting for you to be president again because they’re so clear, they can manipulate you with flattery and favors.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin, Harris told Trump, “would eat you for lunch.”
Scapegoating the
