The Question No One is Asking

VP Debate Wrap-up

Putting aside the punditry about who “won” the vice presidential debate, the event also gave some insight into what the two candidates will bring to the Vice Presidency.

Vance was the more skillful debater and showed a real talent for making Trumpist ideas sound moderate. His presentation was polished, and he deployed a full-range of rhetorical tricks to elide and pivot. Fact-checkers have been busy. My personal favorite artifice was how, as an avowed opponent of reproductive rights, Vance said his pro-family policies were about giving women choices. A neat way to grab the term associated with the popular term for reproductive rights that Vance opposes.

Vance’s expressions of personal sympathy and policy accord with Walz helped further cement Vance as Trumpism with a human face. Vance’s lack of bilious vitriol was a breath of fresh air. He didn’t take us on a journey through the labyrinthine Trumpist multi-verse of conspiracy. Vance, with his low approval ratings had a lot riding on this debate and he succeeded. He is well-positioned to become the Trumpist standard-bearer when Trump leaves the scene.

These talents as a performer will serve Vance well as Trump’s VP. The ability to advance Trump’s agenda in a civil tone and perform diplomatic clean-up on Trump pronouncements is critical for Trump’s VP. Pence performed this role as VP and Vance will as well. For Trump, the presidency is mostly about communications and Vance is undeniably a strong communicator. This is a basic responsibility of the vice president in any administration, but it presents particular challenges in a Trump administration.

While Vance was the more skillful debater, it was not a win by knockout. The only really heavy blow was landed by Walz at the end when Walz hammered Vance for being unwilling to acknowledge that Trump lost the 2020 election and Vance’s waving away the violence on January 6.

Walz may have missed other opportunities to land similar blows, such as when Vance avoided contradicting GOP climate denialism by granting that carbon emissions cause climate change, “for the sake of argument.”

Walz was often too wonky in his responses, but you also saw glimpses of his deep knowledge and mastery of the nuts and bolts of policy-making. Vance has held political office for a mere two years and has little to show for it. Walz, in contrast has held office for 16 years,

When Vance stated the key to solving the housing crises (besides ending immigration of course) is to build on Federal land and cut regulations. Walz responded that there isn’t any Federal land near Minneapolis (or most cities) and that most regulations are state and local and many are important for public safety.

In one of their moments of relative comity on gun violence, Vance turned the GOP talking point that the key to ending gun violence is addressing the mental health crisis. (It is an open question as to whether the GOP is really willing to make the investments needed to achieve this—if so that would be a welcome bi-partisan initiative.) Walz agreed that mental health issues are important but added:

This idea of stigmatizing mental health, just because you have a mental health issue doesn't mean you're violent. And I think what we end up doing is we start looking for a scapegoat.

Both responses showed Walz’ familiarity with the issues, with complexity of making policy and not just offering slogans, and the types of trade-offs and unintended consequences policymaking entails.

Vice presidents chair task forces, as Harris did on an array of issues including labor rights, rural broadband, and reducing immigration from Central America. These are wonky roles that require immersion into the details of policy. Walz showed himself the wonkier of the two and that might be exactly what a policy-oriented Harris administration requires.

Vance’s continued assertions that Vice President Harris has had over three years to implement the policies she and Walz are touting betrays an astounding ignorance of policy making. I have studied the expansion of the vice president’s role for nearly two decades, so I know of what I speak. If Vance believes that the vice president can enact such an expansive policy agenda, then he will be severely disappointed should he take office and finds himself attending fundraisers and funerals.