The commencement of the vice presidential debate at the CBS News studios on Tuesday night elicited an unusual sentiment, which became more pronounced throughout the 90 minutes of intricate policy discourse: was the United States at risk of restoring its rationality?
Following an extended period of exposure to Donald Trump’s bleak portrayal of a nation teetering on the brink of collapse, further intensified by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’s alarming alerts regarding the threats to democracy, this presented a markedly contrasting perspective. The two vice presidential nominees were demonstrating a rare occurrence in American politics: consensus.
“Tim, I find myself in agreement with your perspective,” stated JD Vance, Trump’s running mate, as he engaged with his counterpart Tim Walz in the immigration discussion.
“I find myself in alignment with many of the senator’s statements,” remarked Walz, the governor of Minnesota and Democratic nominee, as the discussion shifted to trade policy.
That assertion lacked validity, naturally. The two individuals remained as distant in their consensus as their superiors, who, during their recent presidential debate, demonstrated a significant divergence in their positions.
On Tuesday, the CBS News studio in midtown Manhattan appeared to have reverted to an earlier era, reminiscent of a time before significant political shifts. In a time when political discourse was civil and advancement did not require demonizing one’s opponent as a enemy of the people.
The transformation for Vance was particularly notable. He is, ultimately, the associate of the designer behind “American Carnage.”.
The senator from Ohio has disseminated false information regarding legal-resident Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, alleging that they are consuming pets such as cats and dogs. It is worth noting that he is associated with the demographic of individuals who are often referred to as “childless cavaliers.”
A transformed Vance appeared on the New York stage. This individual demonstrated a respectful approach towards his debating partner, articulated his points in comprehensive and largely calculated sentences, and even acknowledged his own potential for error—three attributes that the former president seldom replicates.
Vance may have had motivations to differentiate his public persona from that of Trump. At 40, in contrast to Trump’s 78, he possesses a longer time horizon to consider, specifically his own future.
However, his friendly demeanour was also a facade. The Republican vice presidential nominee exhibited notable efficiency in his statements, mirroring the approach of his superior regarding factual accuracy.
He exhibited a complete disregard for the truth. He executed it with remarkable eloquence.
The discussion centred on the vice president overseeing an “open border” with Mexico, despite the fact that the current figures for border-crossers are at a four-year low. He asserted that he had not endorsed a national abortion ban; however, the evidence indicates otherwise, as he did so multiple times during his 2022 senatorial campaign.
Regarding the Middle East crisis, he claimed that the “Kamala Harris administration” allocated $100 billion to Iran through the release of unfrozen assets—a statement lacking accuracy. The figure stood at $55 billion, and the negotiation occurred during the administration of Barack Obama.
He asserted that Trump had “salvaged” the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which is widely recognised as Obama’s highly favoured healthcare insurance program, often referred to as Obamacare. “Salvaged” is a noteworthy term to describe Trump, who attempted 60 times to dismantle the ACA without presenting any viable alternative.
It would require a discerning observer to detect the discrepancies underlying Vance’s polished demeanour and the falsehoods he was disseminating. The previous technology investor and acclaimed author of Hillbilly Elegy appeared at ease on stage and exuded confidence, portraying himself as a rational alternative to Trump, a Maga lion disguised as a sheep.
Walz exhibited instances of tension and discomfort, suggesting that the pre-debate anxiety reported by CNN was indeed authentic. As Vance directed his strikingly blue gaze towards the camera, the Minnesota governor consistently referred to his notes.
The approachable and unpretentious “Coach Walz,” who has gained significant attention across the US after his selection as Harris’s running mate from relative anonymity in Minnesota, was notably missing.
He occasionally faltered, misarticulating his statements to suggest he had formed “friendships” with school shooters instead of the families of the victims. He inadequately addressed the inquiry regarding his erroneous assertion of having visited China during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, awkwardly attempting to evade the matter by labelling himself a “knucklehead.”
However, when the situation became critical, Walz delivered results. In the areas of significant importance to Harris, as she aims to be the first female president and the first woman of colour in the Oval Office, he engaged Vance with intensity, maintaining civility yet delivering a strong critique.
On the topic of abortion, he aligned with his running mate and articulated the significant personal ramifications stemming from Trump’s substantial alteration of Roe v. Wade. He referenced the case of Amber Thurman, who passed away while seeking reproductive care from Georgia to North Carolina.
The discussion yielded an unexpected consensus from the firmly anti-abortion Vance: “Governor, I agree with you; Amber Thurman should still be alive… and I certainly wish that she was.”
There was a singular moment during the evening when the pretence of civility was abandoned by both parties. Vance asserted, with a degree of confidence, that Harris’s initiatives to regulate misinformation in public discourse represented a more significant risk to democracy than Trump’s actions to contest the 2020 election on January 6.
“Tim, my attention is directed towards future outcomes,” Vance responded evasively when Walz enquired directly about Trump’s performance in that contest. “That response lacks substance,” the Democrat retorted, his expression reflecting distress.
Ultimately, both individuals were merely fulfilling the function of secondary participants. While there may have been an increase in optimism regarding the potential for civility to re-emerge in US politics, ultimately, the concluding remarks should be attributed to Trump.
“Walz exhibited a significant lack of cognitive capability—quite comparable to Kamala,” Trump stated on his Truth Social platform shortly after the conclusion of the debate. And just like that, operations resumed as expected.