It’s Tuesday, September 10, and this is The Front Page, your daily window into the world of The Free Press—and our take on the world at large.
Stay tuned for details about our new podcast, Raising Parents with Emily Oster; Kat Rosenfield on why we’re all “Walz’s for Trump”; Victor Davis Hanson on Honestly; the headlines; and more. But first, about tonight. . .
After weeks of anticipation, the debate the country has been waiting for is finally here. I am, of course, referring to the sold-out Free Press debate in Washington, D.C., tonight. The New York Times’ David Leonhardt and Jacobin’s Bhaskar Sunkara will square off against economist Tyler Cowen and Reason editor Katherine Mangu-Ward over the question “Is the American Dream Alive?”
Okay, I’m also hearing a bit of buzz about an event featuring a former California prosecutor and a New York real estate developer up the road in Philly.
But these two events—our economics debate and the presidential debate —are not unrelated. And no, not because they both feature high-powered women in pantsuits, but because the issues discussed in our debate in Washington tonight could prove decisive in this election.
For evidence as to why, look no further than Rachel Janfaza’s report for The Free Press today. She talks to young Americans who feel as though the promise of a good job and a home for their family has never felt further removed. “My generation will be fighting to retire, if at all,” one young man tells our reporter.
Contrary to the idea that young voters prioritize issues like abortion, climate change, or foreign policy, Rachel notes that polling shows economic issues are front of mind for under-30s. Whoever they plan on voting for (and plenty of them haven’t made up their mind yet), the young Americans Rachel spoke to are all dissatisfied with the status quo—and skeptical of the promises of both candidates to do something about it.
Read Rachel Janfaza on the Zoomers who say “The American Dream Is Dead.”
A New Podcast About the Most Important Job in the World
We’re thrilled to announce a new podcast from The Free Press. It’s called Raising Parents with Emily Oster and it’s hosted by economist, best-selling author of Expecting Better, and all-around parenting oracle Emily Oster. (You may remember her as the woman who stood up against school shutdowns. She made the case with data and logic, two things that remain in gravely short supply.)
In the series, which launches Wednesday, September 18, Oster dives into the deep, difficult, and controversial questions facing parents today. She interviews more than 50 researchers, experts, parents, and kids along the way.
Be sure to subscribe on iTunes or Spotify to make sure you don’t miss an episode. Episode One lands in your feed next week. We can’t wait for you to hear it.
In Other Podcast News. . . Victor Davis Hanson on World War II and the Rise of Anti-History
Last week, Tucker Carlson, perhaps the most influential conservative commentator in America, invited on his show a Nazi apologist who thinks that the “chief villain” of World War II was Winston Churchill, not Adolf Hitler. When faced with this claim—and many others like it—by his guest Darryl Cooper, Carlson offered nothing but affirmation.
Here at The Free Press we asked two good historians—Niall Ferguson and Victor Davis Hanson—to respond to this bad history. And today on Honestly, Victor Davis Hanson joins Michael Moynihan for a follow-up conversation.
As well as being the author of a critically acclaimed book on the Second World War, Hanson was for years a regular guest on Carlson’s television show. On the latest episode of the podcast, he talks to Michael about his relationship with the former Fox host, the accuracy and derivation of Cooper’s claims, and why so-called “anti-elitism” so often drifts into antisemitism. Click below to listen to their conversation in full, or catch it wherever you get your podcasts.
We Are All ‘Walz’s for Trump’
Before the October Surprise comes what Kat Rosenfield calls Backstabbing September—the part of the election cycle where someone pops up to betray a distant relative running for office. Last week, a faction of the Walz clan went to war with their cousin Tim by declaring their support for Donald Trump. The Walz bust-up isn’t the only family feud this election: There are the Kennedys who came out against RFK Jr., and then, of course, there are Trump’s angry nieces and nephews. Kat surveys all this internecine strife and finds it strangely comforting.
Read Kat on why “We Are All ‘Walz’s for Trump.”
After keeping it vague for weeks, presidential hopeful Kamala Harris has finally published an “issues” section on her campaign website. On the eve of her debate with Trump, the vice president emphasized middle-class tax cuts, action on price gouging, support for the bipartisan border deal, and access to abortion. But Harris has left out plenty of details. For example, she says she supports an increase in the federal minimum wage—but neither her new “issues” page nor her campaign will say how big an increase. Maybe Donald Trump can ask her for some specifics on the debate stage tonight.
Even as Harris gets a little more specific in 2024, the promises she made in 2019 remain a headache. The latest unwelcome reminder of the progressive positions she took in the Democratic primary five years ago come courtesy of CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski, who reports that during that race Harris told the ACLU she supports cutting ICE’s funding and providing gender transition surgery to detained migrants.
At a rally in Wisconsin on Saturday, Trump promised to sign an executive order banning federal employees from “colluding to limit speech” and to fire “every federal bureaucrat who engaged in domestic censorship under the Harris regime.” This deserves media attention, even praise, writes Alex Berenson, who argues that in ignoring Trump’s stance on this issue, reporters “only undercut their own credibility.” And at the same rally he promised a “bloody story” when it came to mass deportations. That’s just a taste of the “crazy or vicious” things Trump now says every time he speaks, argues David Frum.
On Sunday night, an air strike allegedly launched by Israel hit a scientific research institute in central Syria, killing at least 18 people and injuring dozens more, according to Syrian authorities. Western intelligence suggests that chemical weapons were being produced at the facility and the site is in an area thought to be used as a base by Iranian forces and Iranian-backed militias. Syria claims those killed included civilians as well as combatants. Israel declined to comment on the strike.
A snippet from Matt Walsh’s upcoming documentary Am I Racist? features Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, rummaging in her purse for roughly $30 to pay in reparations to the documentary’s black producer. Walsh, donning a man bun, convinces the unsuspecting DiAngelo to cough up the money to Ben despite her initial hesitation that some people could find the gesture offensive. After Ben reassures her he wouldn’t “turn down cash,” DiAngelo obliges.
After Brown University’s board of trustees decided to vote on divesting from Israel, one board member, hedge fund manager Joseph Edelman, resigned in protest. “How can Brown lend credence to these antisemitic voices, who notably began protesting in support of violence against Jews before Israel had even responded to the Oct. 7 attack?,” Edelman asks in his resignation letter, published in The Wall Street Journal.
The stage is set for tonight’s presidential debate. And the hype is extremely dumb. Trump adviser Jason Miller told reporters Monday that trying to prepare for a debate with Trump is like “trying to prepare for Floyd Mayweather or Muhammad Ali.” The Harris camp, meanwhile, is managing expectations by claiming their candidate is “fundamentally disadvantaged” by a set of rules that includes muted mics.
Ahead of the first meeting between Harris and Trump, I asked some of my Free Press colleagues what they’d be looking out for tonight. Here’s what each of them said was the biggest question on their mind ahead of the presidential showdown. We start with the admirably upbeat Batya Ungar-Sargon. . .
Batya Ungar-Sargon, Free Press Live co-host: I could not be more excited for the debate! Whatever happens, it’s going to be great TV. One big question for me: Will Vice President Harris stand by the economic populism her team has put together for her, or is she going to try to walk it back or disavow its implications as she seemed to do in the CNN interview? I’m also looking to see if she comes off as a significant, substantial candidate with her own viewpoint and convictions, or a front for the Democratic Party elite and their neoliberal agenda—or even their turn to the neoconservative, with the Harris campaign’s pro-war, pro-corporation, and “freedom” messaging. And I’m looking to see if Trump can make the case that he is actually the centrist, normie candidate, the person who cares most about middle- and working-class Americans, their aspirations and desire for stability, security, and civil liberties in an unforgiving world, or if he gets caught up in personal grievances and personal attacks.
Eli Lake, Free Press staff writer: Can Kamala Harris improvise? Can the media-shy candidate respond cogently in the moment to an unexpected challenge from Trump or the moderators, or will she become flustered and incoherent?
Peter Savodnik, Free Press senior editor: Who’s not going to destroy America? That’s the only question that really matters tonight. Both candidates rely on their supporters believing that if the other guy wins, it’s all over—literally. Both camps want voters to believe that this is not just the most important election of our lifetime; it may very well be the last. Which is why the winner of tonight’s debate will be the candidate who can persuade even just a few hundred thousand voters in a few battleground states that voting for them would not, in fact, spell the end of the republic.
Michael Moynihan, Honestly and The Free Press Live co-host: At this point, after nine years of covering him, I’m no longer interested in the endless spluttering, pointless dissembling, and ideological inconstancy of Donald Trump (nor the endless end-of-democracy animadversions of his critics). My focus will be—has to be—on the other political cipher I won’t pull the lever for. The one who, in pursuit of the most powerful position on Earth, has submitted to a single slow-pitch softball interview, alongside her VP candidate, lasting all of 27 minutes. So I am desperate for literally any challenging question (Taxing capital gains? Burning down police stations in Minneapolis? Plastic straws?) asked of Vice President Harris.
Nellie Bowles, TGIF czar: I, of course, want to know what Kamala actually believes in. But I suspect we won’t hear about that during the debate. It’s about vibes and barbs and memes. So I want to know if Trump can match the Coconut Charm. Lately much of his rhetoric has felt so tired and so negative. Kamala comes across as fresh and positive, if a little daffy. So what I’m curious about is simple: Will Trump stick with the rhetoric of American Carnage, or will he try to get a Coconut Moment?
Ben Kawaller, host of Ben Meets America!: Can Trump possibly top “nasty woman”? Regardless, which of tonight’s epithets will by next week be emblazoned all over Kamala’s merch?
Kat Rosenfield, Free Press columnist: As resident culture vulture at The FP, I’m on tenterhooks to find out which moment from this debate will become the election’s biggest meme. Will Kamala manage another viral “I’m speaking” clapback to match her famous original? Will Trump unhinge his jaw like a Burmese python and swallow the moderator whole? Will RFK Jr. crash through the wall of the debate stage like the Kool-Aid Man and then exit, pursued by a bear?! If we’re lucky, the answer to all these questions is “yes.”
Look out for answers to these questions—and more coverage of both debates—in tomorrow’s Front Page. And if you’re coming to tonight’s debate, see you there!
Oliver Wiseman is a writer and editor for The Free Press. Follow him on X @ollywiseman.
To support The Free Press, become a paid subscriber today:
And if you’re enjoying The Front Page, consider forwarding it to someone else you think might like it.
Emily Oster? The Emily Oster from Brown that wrote in the Atlantic that the unvaccinated needed to forgive the nasty behavior of the vax Nazis like her? That she did not know any better and were right to get them fired from jobs because we would not take an unknown drug? A drug that only worked for a person if some other person took it? That Emily Oster? The “data driven economist” that clearly did not look at data on Covid but had a vicious opinion? Gag me with a spoon. She is a nasty piece of work.
My subscription just auto renewed without warning and I am pretty distressed about that. The Free Press started out well, but caved quickly into The NY Times and The New Yorker as noted by Glenn Greenwald.
You need to correct something here. Joseph Edleman resigned as a trustee of Brown University before the vote (not after) because he belived that Brown was caving to the Hamas protestors. That's very important distinction because he wasn't objecting to the outcome of the vote, he was objecting, in principle to the whole idea. (which is clear in your quotes, thank you)