The Fourth GOP Debate: Full Of Sound And Fury, Signifying Nothing

Trump Still Wins Just By Not Being There

“It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Macbeth Act V, scene v

Shakespeare’s Macbeth had the right sense of things surrounding the fourth GOP debate. For all the arguments, for all the insults, for all the rude interruptions, there just was not a lot that qualified as substantial.

Proving that the relatively orderly and almost civil third debate was very much the exception and not the rule for the 2024 GOP primary cycle, last night’s fourth debate was raucous, rowdy, at times rude, and said very little past the already established talking points of each candidates.

What emerged was ultimately a tragedy, albeit not one of Shakespeare’s caliber. Instead of one idiot we had four idiots candidates, all them full of sound and fury, yet still signifying nothing.

The end result was predictable: the real winner of the debate was once again the candidate smart enough not to show up—Donald Trump.

To appreciate both the irony and the inanity of these debates it is instructive to consider Donald Trump’s status in the nationwide political polls. He is not merely the front runner, his polling advantage is so great that if polls were translated immediately into votes, his margin of victory would rival Secretariat’s record victory in the 1973 Belmont Stakes.

Moreover, Trump’s lead is not merely coincidental. After the second and third debates, Trump’s polling averages increased. Only after the first debate did Trump lose any gound in the polls only to quickly regain it and then some.

The RealClearPolitics polling data makes one thing abundantly clear: the debates have made Trump more popular than the other GOP candidates. These debates have left every candidate looking smaller than before, and last night was no exception.

In one sense, Ron DeSantis had a fairly decent performance. On most every question he managed to pivot back to his record as governor of Florida, or occasionally to his time in Iraq as a Navy JAG lawyer. If his strategy was to showcase his executive branch chops and confidence, then Ron DeSantis probably did what he wanted to do.

However, DeSantis also retreated quite often into soundbites and talking points. His favorite closing line throughout the night was “there’s going to be a new sheriff in town.” Close followers of DeSantis’ tenure as governor of Florida will no doubt be familiar with this cliche, as he has used it before—notably when he signed legislation authorizing the Florida state government to take control of Walt Disney World’s self-governing district.

Unfortunately, sound bites do not equate to policy decisions, and DeSantis on multiple occasions tried to tap dance around the moderators’ questions. When asked about using US troops to rescue Americans taken hostage by Hamas on October 7th, he took a hard pro-Israel stance, reiterating Iran’s likely involvement with Hamas’ attacks on October 7th, and taking swipes at Joe Biden for not responding with sufficient force when US troops already in the region have been subjected to drone and other attacks by various Iranian proxy terror groups. Chris Christie took the opportunity to hit at DeSantis for not answering the question directly about using US troops in Israel—although it is debatable whether Christie helped himself by saying bluntly that he would send troops into Gaza but was unclear about the specific circumstances.

Where DeSantis and Christie, as well as Nikki Haley, all gave broadly similar answers was in the use of US military power in various parts of the world. All three favored military strikes against the militias and terror groups in the Middle East who are sponsored by Iran, and none of them bothered to explore the ramifications of a policy of increased military muscle in the Middle East (such as the likely continuation of already illegal wars in the Middle East for which the US President has no valid Congressional authorization). Ramaswamy took pains to draw a distinction with DeSantis in particular on Israel, arguing instead that the US should not intervene but should also not interfere with Israel’s right to defend itself—his thesis was that Israel should defend its borders while the US focuses on America’s borders, in particular the southern border with Mexico.

With regards to the border crisis and the related crisis of fentanyl flowing into the United States, DeSantis again advocated a very muscular response, promising to declare the Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist entities and then developing rules of engagement to enable the US military to use lethal force to stop cartel activities on the border with Mexico (a proposal also put forward by Nikki Haley).

Where DeSantis’ tough talk falls apart, however, is in addressing likely consequences of his aggressive use of government power. On immigration he spoke of defending American “culture” in denying Muslim migrants in particular entry into the United States, but ignored the huge potential for bigotry and bias in implementing such policies. How one develops Muslim-only immigration policies while being faithful to the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protections clause was a question DeSantis and the moderators simply ignored.

Ultimately, DeSantis’ biggest failing on the night was that he never put his proposed policies in a Constitutional context. It may make for great sound bites to promise military action against Mexican cartels, but the Constitution grants the Congress and not the President authority on when and where and how the US military is to be deployed. Attacking Iranian terror proxies might seem like a popular idea among certain voting demographics, but at no point did DeSantis pledge to get Congressional authorization for further military engagement in the Middle East. Even on the issue of Central Bank Digital Currency and cryptocurrency, DeSantis was very clear on what he as President would do, but never once mentioned that the Constitution grants power over the currency to the Congress and not the President.

DeSantis was not alone in ignoring the Constitution when proposing policies. None of the candidates on the stage gave much more than a passing mention to the Constitution throughout the debate. That is a striking and disturbing omission in a debate where all the candidates are promising to root out corruption and reform Washington.

Nikki Haley, who despite DeSantis’ steady decline in the polls and her own modest rise in those same polls still trails DeSantis in the GOP battle for second place behind Donald Trump, had the worst night of all.

She began the night defending having the support of multiple corporate sponsors, saying bluntly that she would happily take money and support from anyone, while at the same time arguing that her policies and proposals were hers, and that she was not in any way “bought” or controlled by corporate interests, monied interests, or special interests. Ramaswamy in particular pounded on her repeatedly, calling her “corrupt” multiple times.

While Haley once again showed a certain mastery of facts and figures, she didn’t handle the slugfest very well at all. Several times she and DeSantis descended into pointless exchanges where each one simply said the other one was lying. For some bizarre reason, she failed to respond to Ramaswamy’s attacks much at all, and on the topic of Ukraine Ramaswamy took particular notice of her passivity. It was quite a moment when Ramaswamy pointed out Haley’s “deer in the headlights” expression when he said she could not name any Ukrainaine province or oblast she would be willing to defend with US troops; Haley literally just stood there with a pained expression on her face and remained silent—an odd choice for a former UN ambassador who likes to show off her factual chops. All Haley needed to do to silence and even kneecap Ramaswamy would construct a response mentioning the four Ukrainian oblasts annexed by Russia (Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk) and whether or not she would support putting US troops on the ground to defend those territories from Russian aggression. It was a brutal moment by Ramaswamy at Haley’s expense, but it was an effective one because he hounded Haley into silence—not a good look for anyone wanting to be Commander-In-Chief.

Throughout the debate, Haley was ultimately defined by the other candidates. Her policies really are not that much different from DeSantis, and the contest between Haley and DeSantis ultimately boils down to which one was better as a state governor. In a Presidential contest such comparisons are quite valid, but Haley did not make nearly as much use of her gubernatorial track record as DeSantis. While it may have been good optics for Chris Christie to come to her defense against a Ramaswamy onslaught, it was horrible optics for Nikki Haley both to seemingly need someone to defend her honor and to allow it to happen; that is not the stuff of effective leadership in any environment, and in the political environment most of all.

Vivek Ramaswamy was, as usual, the attack dog of the evening. From the start he hurled verbal broadsides at the other three candidates, calling them corrupt neocons. Nikki Haley in particular he tagged with the corruption label, and easily scored the most memorable moment of the night when he held up the notepad from his podium with “Nikki = Corrupt” in large block letters.

While it is far from certain such antics will help Ramaswamy in the polls or at the ballot box come the primaries, it is quite likely that his corruption charge of the other candidates will be remembered. Among a GOP electorate already very unhappy with official Washington, Ramaswamy’s corruption charge is sure to resonate, making the task of winning over that electorate considerably more difficult for the other three candidates on the stage.

Unfortunately for Ramaswamy, his verbal incontinences once again defined his debate performance. While voters especially might even agree with his corruption theme regarding the other GOP candidates, his pit-bull posturing has not translated into greater support in the polls, and last night’s performance is unlikely to change that. In some regards, that is a shame, because Ramaswamy is the one candidate willing to break out of the typical politician mold and at least raise some often-ignored points.

His defense of Israel’s right to go after Hamas was very explicitly focused on championing Israel’s rights as a sovereign nation. He does not want the US closely involved in the Israeli-Hamas conflict, but his primary reasoning for that stance is the idea that Israel should do what is best for Israel while the US will do what is best for the US. But for his willingness in other areas to be quite muscular with the use of Presidential authority, his stance on Israel bordered on the libertarian.

On the topic of fentanyl, he was the only candidate who mentioned the demand side of the issue, and the only candidate who advanced the idea that drug addiction is part of a larger mental health crisis in this country. While he is far from clear on how he as President would address that crisis, there is at least some merit in his willingness to go beyond the law-and-order policies of drug interdiction on the southern border.

Ramaswamy was also the candidate most explicit and emphatic in arguing for economic decoupling from China. One gets the sense that Ramaswamy’s trade policy with China would ultimately be, simply, no trade at all. One of the great losses on the night for the viewers was that none of the candidates nor the moderators thought to explore the potential ramifications both good and bad of a full economic decoupling. In terms of both domestic and foreign policy, a complete economic decoupling from China would be quite a sea change, and would be transformative in several respects. Would that be beneficial for either the US economy or US interests abroad? If any of the candidates were interested in the answer to that question they hid it well, for none of them even thought to ask that question or anything like it.

Ramaswamy was also the only candidate willing to take the stance that transgenderism is a mental health disorder. While that stance is not likely to earn Ramaswamy much cross-over appeal with voters outside the Republican base, it is still the stance that crystalizes what lies at the heart of much of the hue and cry in this country over transgender issues: whether such behaviors are legitimate rational choices by individuals or are rather signs of a disordered and suffering mind.

If Ramaswamy’s ultimate goal with his candidacy is to draw attention to the underserved aspects of national issues, he may be somewhat successful. However, he’s undermining any discussion of those underserved aspects by making his own rhetoric the controversial talking point of the day, not those national issues. This has always been the chief deficency of his shoot-from-the-lip tactics in these debates: he is far more polarizing than profound, and very likely the reason he has not fared better in the polls is because when he is on the debate stage he is not that likable an individual. Ramaswamy lacks the humor which is the hallmark both of Donald Trump’s rhetoric today and Ronald Reagan’s rhetoric forty years ago.

Chris Chrisie probably had his best debate performance yet—and still came off on the losing side. His defense of Nikki Haley against Ramaswamy’s insults was probably his best moment of the night. It was the one time any of the three male candidates on the stage made a point to strike a gentlemanly pose.

Unfortunately for Christie, his “straight talk” is straight out of the neocon playbook: Yes he would send troops into Gaza. Yes he will defend Ukraine. Yes he will defend Taiwan. If there is a conflict or potential conflict in the world where Christie would not send US troops, he did not mention it.

Christie’s “straight talk” on Donald Trump ultimately keeps sounding like sour grapes that Trump has the popularity and not Chris Christie. This led him into an almost surely unsustainable stance on Trump being a defendant in multiple criminal proceedings arising out of the 2020 election. By castigating Trump for potentially being convicted of “federal felonies” and making that a “big deal”, Christie by implication is legitimizing Jack Smith’s special counsel persecution of Donald Trump. Christie also by implication is coming down on the side that views the J6 riots at the nation’s capitol an insurrection.

The prospect that the prosecution might be in the wrong where Trump is concerned and not Trump himself never occurred to Chris Christie, and that is a pretty glaring failure on his part. Christie kept sounding annoyed and irritated by Donald Trump, and by Trump’s continued rise in the polls, without considering the possibility that Trump might actually be right in his claims of political persecution by the Deep State. While both DeSantis and Ramaswamy were quite vocal about the need to clean up the FBI and the other alphabet agencies, Christie’s plan for restoring trust to the FBI was little more than appointing a good attorney general who wanted to see justice done above all else.

Christie was also somewhat blinkered on the topic of transgender surgeries for children. While he gave an impassioned defense of parental rights and wanted to leave the entire debate regarding whether or not children should receive puberty blockers or undergo transgender surgical modifications to parents, he was completely unprepared for DeSantis’ rebuttal that subjecting children to transgender treatments with permanent, life-altering consequences is child abuse, and no parent has the right to abuse their child. Christie’s stance on parental rights arguably leaves the door open to parents abusing and even neglecting their children while denying communities the opportunity to deal with that abuse and neglect

Chris Christie’s “straight talk” on any subject ultimately fails to persuade because he simply does not give any room for discussion of the consequences of his policies.

How likely would a President Christie involve the United States in multiple wars—and likely illegal wars?

How likely would a President Christie allow the continued incarceration and persecution of the J6 protesters?

How likely would a President Christie allow children to be harmed through transgender surgeries and medications?

None of Chris Christie’s rhetoric leads to an answer of any of these questions. As with the transgender question, Chris Christie’s “straight talk” stance on any issue leaves him vulnerable to the possibility of unintended consequences, and the Oval Office is a poor place for even one “oops!” moment.

Yet for all the verbal pyrotechnics from Ramaswamy and for all of Chris Christie’s dyspeptic anti-Trump fulminations, the end result was a debate that was in every particular a retread: DeSantis boasted about his successes in Florida, Haley dragged China into every question, Ramaswamy was annoying, and Chris Christie was annoyed.

This debate was more raucous and chaotic than the third debate, but the participants never emerged from their previously established campaign identities. Nothing was said that qualified as original. Even Ramaswamy’s mental health statements were repeats from earlier debates.

The debate stage is smaller now, with only four candidates besides Trump in the hunt for the GOP nomination, but the smaller cast of characters has failed to produce anything resembling a serious exploration of issues and policies ostensibly relevant to the voters come primary season. Every candidate is still posturing for sound bites, and every candidate is stuck in their own particular narrative.

With the exception of Nikki Haley, throughout this cycle of debates the participants have steadily lost support in the polls, according to RealClearPolitics. With the exception of the first debate, each debate throughout this cycle has resulted in more support for Donald Trump. This debate is not likely to alter that dynamic.

Which makes these debates a huge exercise in irrelevancy. No matter what one thinks of any of last night’s participants or of Donald Trump, the polling data is consistent in showing growing support for Donald Trump and declining support for the other candidates. The only thing these debates have accomplished is to cement Donald Trump’s polling lead over all comers—which Trump already had before the first debate even began.

Thus this debate was especially a tale full of sound and fury which signified nothing.