In the Vice-Presidential Debate, Tim Walz Had Better Policy Points, But His Addled Delivery Rolled Right Off J.D. Vance’s Reaganesque Smoothness

As a political analyst with a background rooted in grassroots activism and community organizing, I find myself increasingly alarmed by the growing divide that continues to plague our nation. The recent vice-presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Tim Walz was a stark reminder of just how delicate the balance of power truly is, and how one wrong move could tip the scales in favor of the very forces we are trying so desperately to resist.

Donald Trump’s potential second presidency looms ominously over the nation, yet he continues to embody a politician who is constantly playing a role on the public stage – a character from a reality TV show, if you will, as he carries an abundance of drama wherever he goes. However, it’s important to note that we shouldn’t stretch the candidate-as-entertainment analogy too far when considering other participants in the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Nevertheless, when examining the vice-presidential candidates, Tim Walz and J.D. Vance, it’s hard not to view them through this lens.

In the ongoing campaign, both candidates have been remarkably compelling: Walz, portraying a middle-aged sitcom father figure, who is kind-hearted, sincere, and genuinely concerned, willing to appear foolish for the greater good. He has a straightforward moral compass and an unexpected knack for delivering witty one-liners, making him the unsung hero of the show. As for J.D. Vance, he has embodied the slick corporate villain from a thriller, climbing the ladder with ease and willing to say whatever it takes. With these characterizations in mind, I approached their debate with curiosity: Would Walz manage to project an air of toughness despite his likability? And could Vance tone down his self-serving insincerity?

In this account, I’m sharing my observations about the candidates’ appearances during the debate. Vance had a calm, serene demeanor, his baby blue eyes radiating an air of Zen tranquility. When he addressed the camera, it was with a comforting authenticity – you could almost compare him to Jared Leto’s more reserved brother. On the other hand, Tim Walz seemed agitated while speaking to the camera, and his eyes often conveyed a simmering anger, like a boiling kettle. I understand this description might seem somewhat subjective, but the candidates’ expressions, particularly their eyes, were crucial in conveying the essence of their performances during the debate. I emphasize the eyes because they communicated so much about what each candidate brought – and didn’t bring – to their presentation.

Tim Walz emerged victorious due to his extensive policy proposals, not just superior policies. In contrast, Kamala Harris has faced significant criticism for her lack of specifics in her pitch. At times, Walz appeared to be compensating for this by presenting himself as a meticulous governor brimming with data and statistics, discussing the real-world impact of various bills and their potential benefits if passed. His approach provided a refreshing contrast to the often fantastical promises made by Donald Trump’s campaign, leaving listeners feeling that Walz was grounded in reality when discussing issues like climate change, housing, and healthcare.

His responses lacked the calm, assured tone that one expects from a promising candidate. Walz appeared to be overloaded with the details of his programs, giving off an impression of being somewhat disorganized and flustered, speaking too rapidly. Despite his efforts to present himself as straightforward about the workings of politics, it often came across as if he was hurriedly trying to sell his ideas. In a sense, he mirrored what Democrats have done for four decades: emphasizing their moral principles alongside their administrative skills, a combination that can be persuasive and honorable but seldom…inspiring. It’s a leadership pitch lacking in poetic appeal.

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 J.D. 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 addled 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 create families. And he kept going back to 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 she had little to no power over as vice-president.

Instead of acknowledging the complexities and challenges faced during Donald Trump’s presidency, J.D. Vance chose to disregard reality and idealize his administration as a utopian era characterized by rising wages, global peace, low inflation, and prosperity through corporate tax cuts – a concept that resonates with me? It’s not just that he lied; it’s that he constructed a beacon-on-a-hill narrative that he himself embraced with religious fervor. So, will you join me in questioning this romanticized perspective?

Reagan’s unique political tactic was weaving captivating narratives, and if delivered with conviction, voters would be drawn in. However, this approach was something that Democrats, under leaders like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, also mastered. Perhaps Tim Walz could have benefited from a touch of that storytelling finesse. He shared his own tale, but to win over more supporters, he should have articulated, more often, the grand vision that the Democrats embody.

As a passionate moviegoer, I can’t help but feel the tension unfolding in this political drama, with today’s ballistic-missile attack by Iran on Israel serving as an ominous opening scene. When asked about Trump’s potential response, Walz expressed grave concern, yet failed to instill a strong sense of reassurance that he and Kamala Harris would safeguard the world.

During this election, while many people are expressing their top concern as the economy (after all, $9 cartons of milk can certainly make you think about it), I believe the matter of national security takes center stage for me. Trump’s actions suggest he might inadvertently give Ukraine to Vladimir Putin as a gift. Moreover, during his rallies, he has hinted at the potential danger of World War III – a conflict he claims the Democrats would initiate, but his frequent references to it are quite troubling. On the other hand, J.D. Vance spoke with a soothing, comforting tone, while Tim Walz seemed worried during the debate.

For individuals who fear a second term for Donald Trump could be disastrous, the sense of “elation” following Kamala Harris’s rise signified multiple things. Primarily, it was a sense of emotional release, knowing that Joe Biden had managed to move ahead. It also showed that many perceived Harris as a more formidable and astute leader than anticipated, someone who had managed to unite the party. However, let’s be honest, there was another element of joy – a feeling that we had finally secured victory. (This is reminiscent of the euphoria we felt when the “Access Hollywood” tape was released. A sensation we experience each time Trump escalates his transgressions, thinking, “Now he’s definitely done for!”) And unfortunately, as history has shown us, our optimism was once again misplaced.

It’s important to note that I’m not predicting Harris will definitely lose, but it’s increasingly possible she might, especially considering the sway of undecided voters in rural Pennsylvania. To express this openly (Harris could potentially lose, let’s face it) suggests that America remains deeply divided, Trump continues to garner support from those who arguably should not, and the idea of a blue wave (the belief that Americans will collectively regain their senses) may just be an illusion.

Tonight’s debate carried significant weight due to the tight race for the 2024 presidency. Typically, vice-presidential debates are seen as insignificant, occurring every four years and rarely having an impact (as demonstrated by Lloyd Bentsen’s sharp remark to Dan Quayle in 1988, which went something like, “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy,” but it didn’t sway the election at all). However, with the outcome of this race being so close that small factors could potentially decide it, every detail matters. Therefore, tonight’s debate was a performance that could be the minute difference that makes the difference.

In simpler terms, if you reviewed or heard the debate, you might conclude that Tim Walz narrowly won. His proposals were sensible and forward-thinking, while his demeanor was kind and empathetic, making him seem overly willing to find agreement with Vance. This conciliatory approach seemed to resonate with Vance as well (I suspect because he realized it was effective). However, beneath his saintly appearance, Vance displayed himself tonight as a slick, movie-star politician who harbors some genuine conservative views (such as hostility towards immigrants and the denial of women’s reproductive rights). On stage, his ideology might be boiled down to, “If it sounds good, say it.” This approach makes voters feel good, but that’s a concerning thought because it may not reflect solid policy-making.

2024-10-02 07:47

In the Vice-Presidential Debate, Tim Walz Had Better Policy Points, But His Addled Delivery Rolled Right Off J.D. Vance’s Reaganesque Smoothness

Read More

Minority Mindset