In the Vice-Presidential Debate, Tim Walz Had Better Policy Points, but His Agitated Delivery Rolled Right Off JD Vance’s Reaganesque Smoothness

As a lifelong observer of American politics and someone who has witnessed my fair share of presidential debates, I must say that tonight’s vice-presidential debate was more than just a contest between two candidates; it was a stark reminder of the deep divisions within our nation and the power of political theater.

In a less ominous portrayal:

In the ongoing campaign, both candidates have shown distinct personalities: Walz, reminiscent of a middle-aged sitcom father, comes across as kind and sincere, always ready to be a bit goofy but with a straightforward moral compass that adds a touch of wit, making him the unexpectedly powerful comic relief. On the other hand, JD Vance has portrayed himself as a slick corporate villain straight out of a thriller, a climber who’s not shy about saying whatever it takes to get ahead. As I approached their debate, my thoughts were: Will Walz, despite his likability, prove he’s tough enough? And will Vance manage to hide his self-serving smarminess?

In this account, I’m describing my observations about the candidates during the debate. Vance had calm, baby blue eyes with a peaceful demeanor when he addressed the camera; his gaze conveyed a comforting sincerity, much like Jared Leto’s fictional brother might. Conversely, Tim Walz seemed irritated as he looked into the camera and spoke, and his eyes often flashed an intense, simmering anger, reminiscent of a boiling kettle. While it may seem unfair to focus on their physical appearances, the eyes of these two candidates told a story that went beyond their words – they revealed much about what each candidate brought to their performance during the debate.

Tim Walz emerged victorious due to his extensive policy proposals: He wasn’t just successful because of having better policies, but because he had an abundance of them. On the other hand, Kamala Harris has faced significant critique for the lack of specifics in her approach, and at times, it seemed like Walz was attempting to compensate for this. Walz portrayed himself as a Midwestern governor who took pride in being a policy wonk, overflowing with statistics and facts, explaining the impact of various bills on people’s lives, and outlining the potential benefits if only we could manage to pass them. Hearing Tim Walz discuss his meticulously planned strategies for addressing climate change, housing issues, or healthcare crises gave the impression that he was firmly grounded in reality. This stands in stark contrast to the excessive fantasticality of Donald Trump’s campaign.

Despite his attempts to convey his plans, Walz’s demeanor didn’t instill the tranquil, unwavering assurance one seeks in a candidate. Instead, he appeared nervous, somewhat disorganized, excessively enthusiastic in an uncomfortable manner, often speaking rapidly. Although it seemed like he was being straightforward about the intricacies of politics, his haste often gave the impression that he was hurriedly trying to sell his ideas. In a sense, he mirrored what Democrats have been doing for four decades: emphasizing their moral principles alongside their administrative skills, a mix that can be persuasive and honorable but seldom…inspiring. It’s a call to leadership that lacks poetic flair.

Okay, you say, but who needs poetry? Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are fighting to save America. Yes they are, and I believe they’re the ones to do it. But the way you save America is by winning the election. And on that score, JD Vance gave an astonishingly impressive performance that was all wrapped up in the aura of a winner. With those piercing eyes and that perfectly coiffed hair, his FM-DJ-meets-Fox-News voice, and his absolute refusal to get riled about anything, even if it was one of his pet ideologies (like the evils of immigration), he worked the debate stage with remarkable panache. He had confidence; he had calm; he had a Mona Lisa smile that allowed him to stay above the fray. And, to my surprise, he had a touch of what Ronald Reagan did — the ability to make all his statements sound like a form of assurance. That was true even when he was selling pure malarkey.

He argued that Donald Trump…was the savior of the Affordable Care Act! That the scuttling of the Iran nuclear deal was somehow not Trump’s doing, and that the Republican policy on women’s reproductive rights is all about generous, open-minded ideas of helping people find progressive ways to create families. He dodged questions he didn’t like by going off on tangents he never returned from. And he kept dipping into two grand canards that he inflated to the level of mythology. The first was that Kamala Harris is to blame for everything under the sun you don’t like. Vance was like a broken record excoriating Harris for things she had little to no power over as vice-president.

However, another deceptive claim he made was to erase reality and portray Donald Trump’s presidency as if it were an idealized era of increasing wages, global harmony, low inflation, and the benefits of corporate tax cuts (specifically trickle-down prosperity). This mirrors a familiar narrative. It’s not just that Vance deceived; it’s that he constructed a utopian mythology reminiscent of a city on a hill, which he held as deeply religious truth. So, are you willing to do the same?

Reagan’s unique political strategy was to weave captivating narratives that resonated with voters, and it worked remarkably well. However, this tactic was also successfully employed by the Democrats, under the leadership of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Tim Walz might have benefited from incorporating more of that narrative flair into his campaign. Instead of focusing primarily on his personal experiences, he should have articulated a more compelling vision of what the Democratic Party stands for.

From the get-go, addressing the initial question regarding Iran’s ballistic missile attack on Israel today, I couldn’t help but express concern over potential actions by the current administration. However, it wasn’t me who articulated that myself and Vice President Kamala Harris would safeguard the world. For a prolonged period, even before James Carville coined his timeless political wisdom, “It’s the economy, stupid,” the paramount concern for American voters choosing a president was the matter of national security. Historically, Democrats have faced the challenge of disproving the perception that they are not just lenient on domestic issues but also lack the robustness to ensure global safety. This misconception about our commitment to national defense has been a hurdle we’ve had to overcome.

In this election, while many emphasize their concern for the economy (the high price of milk can certainly focus minds), I believe national security is a significant concern. Trump’s actions suggest he might hand Ukraine over to Vladimir Putin like a gift. Moreover, at his rallies, he has been discussing the potential for World War III – a conflict he attributes to the Democrats, yet his frequent mentions of it are quite alarming. It was JD Vance who spoke with a comforting paternal tone, while Tim Walz seemed uneasy.

For individuals who fear a second term for Trump might be disastrous, the surge of “elation” following Kamala Harris’s rise to Vice President symbolized several aspects simultaneously. Primarily, it represented a sense of cathartic release that Joe Biden had managed to overcome obstacles. There was an undeniable impression that Harris, as a contender, appeared stronger and more astute than many anticipated, thus unifying the party. However, another facet of this elation, let’s be honest, was the belief we had secured victory once more. (This is similar to the feeling experienced on the night when the “Access Hollywood” tape was released. A feeling we experience each time Trump escalates his transgressions, thinking, “Now he’s truly finished!”) And, unfortunately, as history has shown us, we were proven wrong yet again.

It’s important to note that I’m not predicting Harris will definitely lose, but it’s become clear in recent weeks that she might – by a narrow margin among swing voters in rural Pennsylvania. Mentioning this possibility (Kamala Harris could potentially lose) implies several things: the nation remains polarized, Trump continues to appeal to many who arguably should not, and the idea of a blue wave, where America as a whole would supposedly regain its senses, may just be an illusion.

Tonight’s debate was a high-stakes affair, with the tension palpable as we delved into the world of vice-presidential debates – events that, every four years, we pretend to hold in great importance. History tells us that, more often than not, these encounters don’t significantly impact the election outcome. Remember Lloyd Bentsen’s legendary put-down of Dan Quayle in 1988? His sharp retort, “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy,” didn’t sway a single vote.

In simpler terms, if you reviewed or heard the debate, you might conclude that Tim Walz emerged victorious. His proposals were rational and forward-thinking; his demeanor was empathetic and caring, which made it seem like he was eager to find agreement with Vance. This approach seemed to resonate with Vance as well (perhaps because he realized it was beneficial for him). However, beneath that false image of virtue, Vance showed himself to be a cunning politician during the debate who holds traditional, conservative views (such as hostility towards immigrants and the belief that Trump didn’t try to manipulate the 2020 election). On stage, his ideology might be summarized as, “If it feels right, just say it.” This approach can make voters feel good, but it’s a concerning thought because it could potentially mislead them.

2024-10-02 14:47

In the Vice-Presidential Debate, Tim Walz Had Better Policy Points, but His Agitated Delivery Rolled Right Off JD Vance’s Reaganesque Smoothness

Read More

Minority Mindset