It’s Time To Ditch the Conventional Wisdom in this Election

It goes without saying that Sen. J.D. Vance won the vice presidential debate on Tuesday. True to form, he responded to his predictably hostile moderators with confidence and grace. All throughout, he showed off his intelligence, empathy, and personal discipline. He even made his opponent feel all warm and fuzzy by the end of it.

By contrast, Gov. Tim Walz was nervous, scatterbrained, and full of excuses and lies. Even though the moderators did what they could to help him by ignoring his abysmal record as a governor and his stolen valor, he couldn’t articulate any clear reason why Americans should vote for him and Harris. Although many have already seized on his verbal flub when he claimed to be “friends with school shooters,” perhaps an even more embarrassing moment was his weird rambling response to a question about one of his trips to China. 

That said, he survived the night, shook hands with Vance, and at least didn’t come off unlikeable. A doofus with inexplicable ties to the CCP? Yes. But a malicious and incompetent executive? Not really. As such, even though Vance receive an A+ for his debate performance and Walz earned a C- or D+, it’s unlikely that this debate will change anyone’s mind.

In this case, Vance has no one to blame except himself. Even though the substance of what he said likely resonated with most Americans, particularly his arguments on immigration, the economy, and free speech, his delivery was just a little too perfect, too rehearsed, too well-timed. Even his fact-checking of the fact-checkers—easily his best moment—seemed pre-planned and unnatural. Consequently, the whole thing came off smoothly and correctly, but oddly unsatisfying.

Moreover the tactful deflections and pivots to other topics felt more jarring than graceful. Yes, this conforms to the conventional wisdom of keeping away from no-win topics that biased moderators like to throw at Republican candidates, but it also forgoes some important opportunities to set the record straight. In Vance’s case, he pivoted away from setting limits on abortion and instead talked about a friend who had an abortion and repeated his desire to “support families” and “give women a choice” about how they raise their child. Similarly, he used the question about the 2020 election and January 6th as an occasion to attack Harris and Walz on censorship. 

Sure, one would say that he didn’t take the bait and that performing these kinds of maneuvers keeps him above the fray, but are viewers really fooled by this—particularly in the age of podcasts and social media? Is it really so bad to be frank about abortion—that it’s morally evil, but popular among certain people, and thus can’t be legally abolished in a democratic system? Vance is Catholic, after all.

Is it really unhinged to say that the 2020 presidential election was filled with irregularities that were never fully recognized and likely resulted in Biden’s election? And would it really hurt Vance to stand up for the January 6th protesters, hundreds of whom are still rotting in jail for nothing more than simply being there? At the very least, he could have pointed to the mass destruction of the George Floyd riots that Tim Walz enabled and his Kamala Harris helped to fund.

Moreover, Vance said precious little about the millions of neglected victims of Hurricane Helene or the fact that his running mate was almost assassinated twice. Is playing nice with Democrats and winning over the perpetually offended cat ladies really worth this silence? Is playing nice with Democrats and winning over the perpetually offended cat ladies really worth this silence?Tweet This

Although Trump was uniformly panned for his last debate performance, he actually dared to be honest about these issues even at the risk of looking ridiculous (it’s not his fault that certain Haitian migrants happen to eat people’s pets). This might have violated the prescribed rules of debate, but he ended up informing his audience on wide array of issues. More importantly, he was funny and engaging. Meanwhile, Harris recited her platitudes and lied with abandon. To paraphrase Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre’s remarks on Joe Biden, one could say that Harris did a Big Girl Debate and passed with flying colors, but that was about it.

Maybe Vance was told to pull a Mike Pence and act as Trump’s foil, steering clear of controversy and being “the adult in the room.” And maybe it will be a winning strategy. Or maybe it will ring hollow at a time when America’s constitutional order remains in doubt and WWIII is looming on the horizon. 

More than anything else, what these debates suggests is that the rules of politics have changed. These are different times that call for different leaders. It’s time to adapt or face extinction. 

[Photo Credit: Getty Images]