Reflections on the Nice-Presidential Debate

Well, that was a breath of fresh air! Just when I had all but given up hope for the state of US politics, the Vice-Presidential debate came along and provided a dose of civility in civic life. Believe it or not, there was once a time when politicians and their supporters could agree to disagree without resorting to name calling, inuendo, and threats of physical violence. I know, that sounds like a quaint idea after the past decade but take my word for it. 

Last night’s debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz reminds us that dedicated public servants can come together, be civil to one another, exchange views, and shake hands amicably in a manner that unites even as the country moves to vote on the highest office in the land. Regardless of one’s political perspective, this can only be a good thing at a time when public discourse in the United States has become so toxic.

This was all the more surprising as expectations were pretty low, not only in terms of the individual candidates, but in regard to the traditional role played by the vice-presidential candidates. Over the years, the running mate has been chosen in part to serve as attack dog. In this role they serve as vicious surrogates, while the main candidates seek to remain above the fray. As a result, clashes between two such individuals might be expected to be fractious. In the past the VP debate has led to memorable moments, most notably in 1988 as Lloyd Bentsen reminded Dan Quayle that he was “no Jack Kennedy.”

Last night’s debate will perhaps not be long remembered for any individual line or moment, although several stand out. Walz was certainly nervous in the opening 10 minutes, and this clearly impacted his performance. Claiming to have befriended school shooters will not be a moment he will care to recall, and his answer on his whereabouts in the summer of 1989 was frankly awful. Likewise, Vance’s inability to address the events of January 6 in a more forthright manner cast a pale over his otherwise stellar performance.

The debates this season have been eventful and memorable. The first led to the quick removal of a sitting president. The second took the wind out of the Republican candidate’s sails and breathed new life back into what appeared to have become a one-sided contest. Last night might not have done much to move the needle in terms of the outcome. Doubtless those who took the time to sit through the debate will have had their own perceptions reinforced one way or the other, and it will be interesting to see how the debate struck those voters who have yet to make their choice. 

These debates often turn on a moment and are remembered as much for visuals as for what was said. On that basis, and forgive me if I declare an opinion, JD Vance appeared to come away the winner. His demeanor was balanced, his tone was steady, he was cordial with his opponent, and he stuck to his mission. There was no histrionics, no tantrums, no insults. It was a refreshing performance from someone who appears set for a great future in the GOP regardless of the result in November. Tim Walz by contrast took time to settle, appeared to be befuddled at times and made unprompted errors that undermined his debate performance. It’s not that he was bad, this was not on a par with the unfortunate James Stockdale in 1992, but Vance was far sharper on the night. 

Notwithstanding this, both men did a great service to the country last night. They demonstrated that civility still exists, that it is possible to disagree in a polite and respectful manner and that regardless of the result in November, politicians can come together to achieve results. For that alone they deserve the thanks of a nation tired of political tension, in desperate need for what Warren G. Harding termed ‘a return to normalcy.’  What a shame they were not at the top of their party’s ticket this year.