It was Hillary Clinton who observed of her 2016 presidential campaign rival: “A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.”

All indications from Tuesday evening’s presidential debate are that Donald Trump today is easier to bait than ever. Moreover, his lifelong habit of publicly describing (and apparently believing) scenarios that are not merely false but objectively deranged seems to have worsened.

We’ll spare readers the tired game of “who won“ the debate. Suffice to say, most mainstream analyses appear to agree that Kamala Harris’ poised performance — dodgy and devoid of details though it often was — probably did what she needed it to do in terms of presenting her as a credible candidate to a nation that still doesn’t know her that well.

But let’s talk about the candidate we all know very well.

If there’s one issue that came out clearly in Tuesday’s event, it’s that Trump’s escalating embrace of dystopian fantasies and bizarre conspiracy theories should in itself be disqualifying for high office.

And the fact that we’re all somewhat used to it these days doesn’t make it less dangerous. In fact, it makes it more so.

We offer a thought exercise. Consider the fallout if Harris — or Clinton, or Barack Obama, or Mitt Romney, or any other national figure of any party — had ever stood on a presidential debate stage and said anything like this:

• “They’re eating the dogs! The [migrants] that came in — they’re eating the cats! … People on television say, ‘My dog was taken and used for food!’”

• “[E]xecution after birth, it’s execution, no longer abortion, because the baby is born … [They] put the baby aside and then we determine what we want to do with the baby.”

• “[A] lot of these illegal immigrants coming in, they’re trying to get them to vote. They can’t even speak English. They don’t even know what country they’re in practically. And these people are trying to get them to vote. And that’s why they’re allowing them to come into our country.”

• “Viktor Orban, one of the most respected men — they call him a strong man. He’s a tough person. Smart. Prime Minister of Hungary. … He said the most respected, most feared person is Donald Trump.”

Needless to say, migrants aren’t eating house pets, doctors aren’t engaging in post-birth executions, illegal immigrants aren’t being shipped in to vote. And Orban is a vicious dictator whose endorsement no rational leader should want.

There’s so much more: Trump claimed in the debate that crime is rising (it’s falling); that he had record-high economic growth while President Joe Biden had record-high inflation (both false); that 21 million illegal immigrants have arrived monthly under Biden (it’s actually less than half that many total, over Biden’s entire three-plus years in office, says U.S. Border Control); that foreign countries are opening their jails and sending criminals here (an utter fabrication).

And on. And on. And on.

How did rhetoric indicating not just dishonesty but a psychological break with reality get to be so normal in presidential politics that most people are dissecting this debate as if it was about policy and not mental stability? It’s a question that the media and the public should be pondering deeply.

Harris earned some criticism of her own during the debate — for glossing over details of her policy plans with glittering generalities, for pivoting away from hard questions about her altered positions — but all of it was within the range of normal politics. If she suggested at any point that scary brown people from distant lands are coming for Fido, we missed it.

And even on an issue where Harris is legitimately vulnerable — immigration — Trump was unable to set aside his epic ego long enough to capitalize on that weakness.

At one point, Harris needled Trump about the size of his campaign rallies, in the most obvious bait-setting imaginable. Trump, when subsequently offered a teed-up chance to get into immigration, veered off course with: “First let me respond as to the rallies … the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics.”

This is the man we want negotiating with crafty foreign leaders in a dangerous world?

Harris’ team should be careful about overconfidence. Her generally well-received debate performance was helped immeasurably by her unhinged opponent. Her smiling, optimistic demeanor was a welcome antidote to Trump’s glowering menace.

But she still owes America more substance about her plans. If she doesn’t follow up the debate with some serious interviews and/or press conferences, she does a disservice to both her campaign and her country.

Still, no one should lose sight of the real story today: Donald Trump’s well-established mental and emotional instability is getting worse. As unfit as he was for office the first time around, he’s more so now.

The man we all saw on the stage in Philadelphia on Tuesday should not be in charge of house pets — let alone nuclear weapons.

©2024 STLtoday.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.