The presidential debate was not just a clash of personalities but a stark revelation of policy, philosophy, and future direction for America.

From a conservative viewpoint, several critical points emerged, painting a picture of a nation at a crossroads.

Economic Policies:

Trump, with his characteristic bravado, highlighted his past economic achievements, emphasizing deregulation and tax cuts. However, his portrayal of the current administration's economic policy as 'disastrous' might resonate with many conservatives but lacks nuance.

The truth is, economic cycles are complex, and while the Biden-Harris administration has indeed overseen rising inflation, attributing all economic woes to their policies ignores global factors at play. Yet, from a conservative perspective, Harris's defense of economic policies seemed more like a sidestep, focusing on equity rather than growth, which might not soothe the concerns of those feeling the pinch of inflation.

Immigration:

Here, Trump's critique holds substantial weight among conservatives. The border situation, a perennial concern, has arguably deteriorated, with policies under Biden-Harris being perceived as too lenient. Harris's approach to addressing root causes rather than immediate border security feels like a misstep to those who prioritize national sovereignty and security. The conservative viewpoint sees immigration not just as a humanitarian issue but as one of law, order, and economic impact, areas where Trump's tough stance, despite its controversies, resonates strongly.

Foreign Policy:

Trump's comments on Afghanistan and potential concessions to Russia over Ukraine are where conservatives might split. While some applaud a hardline 'America First' approach, others see the nuances of international diplomacy. Harris's defense of continuing to support Ukraine aligns with traditional conservative values of standing against aggression, yet the execution under their watch leaves much to be desired, echoing a sentiment of weakened American leadership abroad.

Abortion and Social Issues:

On abortion, Trump attempted to corner Harris with the extreme cases, a tactic familiar to conservatives. Harris's focus on women's rights over the specifics of late-term procedures might seem evasive to those who value life from conception. Here, the debate underscores a fundamental divide: individual rights versus moral absolutes, a debate where conservatives find Trump's straightforward, if not always accurate, stance more aligning with their values.

Media Bias and Debate Conduct:

A point where conservatives nod vigorously is the perceived media bias. The selective fact-checking, the nature of questions, and the moderators' approach were seen as tilted against Trump. This feeds into the conservative narrative of a media landscape skewed left, where even debates, meant for fair play, become arenas of bias. This not only undermines the debate's purpose but further alienates conservative viewers who feel their views are underrepresented or misrepresented.

In the debate, the stark contrast between economic visions was palpable. Trump's narrative of deregulation and tax cuts as catalysts for growth clashes with Harris's push for equitable economic policies, which conservatives see as veiled government overreach. This divide isn't merely about numbers or growth rates; it's fundamentally about the role of government in American life. Conservatives argue that less government interference fosters economic vitality, whereas the current administration's approach might stifle the very innovation and entrepreneurship that drive American prosperity. This debate underscores a pivotal question: Should economic policy empower individuals or expand governmental equity programs?

Concluding Thoughts:

From tonight's debate, conservatives might feel both vindicated in their criticisms and frustrated. Trump, with all his flaws, managed to tap into the core concerns of economic freedom, secure borders, and a skepticism towards progressive social policies. Harris, while articulate, often seemed to dodge direct engagement on these issues, focusing instead on broader, less tangible promises of equity and global cooperation.

The debate, therefore, wasn't just about who won or lost but highlighted the conservative critique of the current administration: a perceived overreach into economic micromanagement, a soft approach on immigration, and a foreign policy that doesn't put 'America First'. However, conservatives must also reflect on the delivery of their message. Trump's style, while effective for his base, might not expand his appeal. The challenge for conservatives is to articulate these valid criticisms in a manner that invites dialogue rather than division, something tonight's debate format and moderation did little to encourage.

In essence, for conservatives, this debate was a mirror reflecting their deepest concerns about America's direction, yet it also posed a question: How can these concerns be addressed in a way that unites rather than divides further? This op-ed, from a conservative lens, argues not just for a critique of policies but for a reevaluation of how political discourse is conducted in America.

Image: Screen shot from Wall Street Journal video, via YouTube