In today’s political climate, discourse is frequently reduced to sensational soundbites and partisan “gotcha” moments that obscure the real issues. This election cycle has escalated that trend, with much of the debate revolving around slogans rather than substance, personalities over policies.
A recent conversation on Honestly, hosted by Bari Weiss, offers a rare exception. Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro set aside the usual theatrics to present their most reasoned cases for Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, respectively, aiming to clarify their positions rather than win points.
This dialogue evokes a principle deeply embedded in Jewish tradition: machloket l’shem shamayim, or “dispute for the sake of Heaven.” This tradition, reminiscent of the respectful debates between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, values truth over victory. In that spirit, this article summarizes Harris and Shapiro’s best arguments, maintaining a commitment to intellectual honesty and good faith.
The core disagreement
The conversation hinges on a fundamental difference in evaluating leadership. Sam begins by saying that his entire argument is against Trump, and Harris is preferable to Trump by simply not being Trump. Sam Harris contends that rhetoric and character are paramount, viewing Trump’s inflammatory language as harmful to democracy.
Harris sees an asymmetry between Trump’s excesses and those of his Democratic counterparts, asserting that the extreme devotion of Trump’s followers and their willingness to indulge in mob-like behavior far outweighs comparable actions on the left. On the other hand, Shapiro emphasizes the empirical record over rhetoric, arguing that the extremes on both sides are essentially equivalent.
This distinction—between rhetoric and record and the perception of political asymmetry—defines the divergence in their perspectives and frames the arguments each presents.
Sam Harris’s Case Against Trump
January 6th and the Undermining of Democracy
For Harris, Trump’s actions surrounding January 6th represent a direct attack on the democratic process. By refusing to concede and spreading baseless claims of a stolen election, Trump undermined one of America’s core democratic principles: the peaceful transfer of power. For Harris, this breach alone is disqualifying, regardless of Trump’s eventual compliance.
Normalization of Outrageous Behavior
Harris argues that Trump has normalized unacceptable conduct for a U.S. president. From recording a song with January 6th detainees to prioritizing personal loyalty over constitutional duties, Trump has set a new, troubling standard of leadership. Harris asserts that this normalization diminishes public expectations of decency in governance and blurs ethical boundaries, promoting a style of politicking that would have been unimaginable a decade ago.
Escalation of Political Tensions
According to Harris, Trump’s approach has escalated political tensions, creating a “constant political temperature” that destabilizes the nation. Rather than uniting Americans, Trump’s rhetoric fosters division, making politics inescapable and burdensome. For Harris, Trump’s departure is necessary to return politics to its rightful, less intrusive and normal place in American life.
Fascistic Elements in Trump’s Rhetoric
Harris identifies authoritarian undertones in Trump’s rhetoric, citing scholars like Robert Paxton and Trump’s former Chief of staff, John Kelly, to back his observations. From cultivating a victim narrative to demanding loyalty, using demagoguery and inflammatory language, including the use of the military against political opponents, Trump’s tactics resemble those found in authoritarian regimes. Trump’s insistence on loyalty to the “big lie” about the 2020 election, as a litmus test for allowing people to come close to him, is a testament to the lengths people are willing to go to for having clout under the MAGA.
Many Republicans wanted to impeach Trump and have told Cheney and Romney about their reluctance to do it out of fear that their family would be physically hurt by a MAGA lunatic. There is a complete asymmetry between the madness and use of political violence on Trump’s side and the Democrats in this sense.
Narcissism and Governance
Harris contends that Trump’s narcissistic worldview, fixated on transactional relationships, undermines his capacity for effective governance. He asserts that Trump lacks an understanding of America’s strategic alliances and public policy, basing judgments instead on flattery—a trait exploited by authoritarian leaders worldwide. Many of Trump’s senior appointees have since denounced his character, with some military leaders calling him a danger.
Ben Shapiro’s Case for Trump
Emphasis on Policy Over Rhetoric
Shapiro maintains that Trump’s policy achievements—such as the Abraham Accords and a restrained foreign policy—should take precedence over his rhetoric. Shapiro argues that, despite Harris’s nuanced tone, Biden-Harris policies have led to crises, including the largest Middle Eastern conflict in decades. Shapiro also criticizes Harris’s role in overseeing the Southern border, where an estimated 8.4 million undocumented migrants have reportedly entered under her watch.
Trump as a Symptom, Not the Cause
Shapiro contends that Trump is a product, not the cause, of America’s current political dysfunction. He argues that longstanding issues in the political system, not Trump’s personality, are the source of national divisions and that removing Trump won’t resolve the underlying challenges.
Democratic Authoritarianism and Hypocrisy
Shapiro points to a subtler and less uncouth form of authoritarianism within the Democratic Party. He highlights instances like draconian pandemic-era OSHA mandates as examples of overreach, suggesting that Democrats have also infringed on personal freedoms through unprecedented use of executive actions. Shapiro further argues that the “weaponization” of the Justice Department through lawfare and legal actions against political opponents betray the very democratic principles Democrats claim to uphold.
Character and Competency
Shapiro criticizes Harris for lacking a clear policy vision, asserting that her main appeal is simply “not being Trump.” He argues that her inconsistent positions render her a vessel for the Democratic establishment, and he cites her recent remarks on Israel as evidence of her being restrained by the Jihadi factions in her party, preventing her from appearing too pro-Israel.
Ultimately, this election offers Americans a choice that goes beyond traditional partisan divides. It is a decision between two deeply unpopular candidates, each representing different ailments in American politics. In casting their ballots, voters will decide not only the next four years but also the ethical foundations that will shape the nation’s future.
The writer is a research analyst at the Israel Defense and Security Forum-Habithonistim, specializing in the fields of delegitimization, US-Israeli relations, and Hezbollah. Currently pursuing a Masters in Data Science at the Hebrew University.