Tuesday’s U.S. vice-presidential debate was a less aggravating affair, and an instructive one.
When Ohio Republican Sen. JD Vance and Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz stood onstage, there was a clear difference in presentation. Walz seemed slightly uncomfortable onstage, eyes wide and sometimes stammering out answers. Vance seemed much more assured and calm, but that should be no surprise. Vance is a Yale law graduate and so is more attuned to the decorum of a traditional debate than his running mate (and may even quite enjoy being in that arena).
Tuesday’s debate felt like a return to pre-Trump politics — Vance and Walz debated respectfully but forcefully with one another and even seemed conciliatory at times. But it’s in these niceties that the greatest lesson about the stakes of this election can be learned.
The Associated Press Republican vice-presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance.
Vance’s confidence didn’t line up with the strength of his arguments, whereas while Walz may have seemed awkward and stammering at times, his attitude as to why and how the U.S. should look after its citizens was straightforward and may well resonate with many voters.
Vance often dodged the questions put to him by moderators in order to talk about the current administration, during which he was caught in the same trap as Trump, in that he often spoke as though Harris was currently the president and thus responsible for all of the current administration’s policies, rather than the outgoing Joe Biden.
When questioned on Trump’s description of climate change as a hoax, Vance instead stated that if Harris and the current administration actually believed what they said about the dangers of climate change they would be doing much more. That’s a good barb, because it’s true. But he took that swing in order to avoid clarifying whether he agreed with Trump on the seriousness of the issue.
To be fair, Vance articulated some interesting policy goals. On the environment, he called for more nuclear power and more domestically produced solar energy, including the components for panels. On the issue of abortion, Vance avoided defending different states’ abortion bans in favour of arguing for more holistic public support for young families so that women have “more options” than abortion.
Walz, for his part, defended his own record in Minnesota, particularly on the issues of education and health care, particularly abortion, in which he said his state had effectively restored Roe v. Wade’s old terms.
Inevitably, Vance was questioned about his accusations against the Haitian immigrant community of Springfield, Ohio. Vance defended himself, claiming that illegal immigration was presenting many problems to American citizens.
It was when moderator Margaret Brennan pointed out to Vance that many immigrants of Springfield, Ohio’s Haitian community have legal status that he most efficiently condemned himself.
“The rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact-check,” Vance said.
While it’s true that the moderators of the CBS debate did say they would not be fact-checking the candidates in real time, it’s not the kind of thing you want to complain about on the air.
In a vice-presidential debate, one must spend the time asking “what if?” What if one of these people, one way or another, becomes the president?
Based on the debate, if Walz were to become president we might expect a slightly uncomfortable, awkward but ultimately well-meaning leader (though in fairness, good intentions often lead one way). What Vance presented was a politician who dodges difficult questions, defends indefensible statements and keeps his true intentions cloudy — with all the niceties and decorum an Ivy-league education can drill into a person.
Which means the U.S. could end up with a leader who shares many of Trump’s objectives, but with the savvy to effectively hide his intentions.
