With my eldest running around the room and my soon-to-be one-year-old comfortably settled on my lap, I tuned in for the much-anticipated vice presidential debate. It certainly didn’t match the chaotic spectacle of the presidential debate—an event that felt more like theater, featuring a lawyer against a would-be authoritarian, a despot in waiting, whose antics seemed lifted from a carnival. That night may have had its comic moments, but it also laid bare the ignorance and moral decay afflicting a significant portion of the American electorate.
Enter Walz and Vance. The latter, a transparent opportunist, has already proven how far he’s willing to go. He’s on record admitting that the story about Haitian migrants eating residential pets in Springfield is a fabrication, yet he continues to propagate the lie to inflame a base of racists—seemingly unbothered by the consequences.
Sidebar: I’m not Haitian by association; I’m Haitian by birth and blood. I have no patience for anyone trafficking in harmful stereotypes about us. You can imagine the sentiments I have towards Trump and Vance at this moment. I will expound more on my observations of Haitians in America at some other time.
Back to the debate. There’s not much to say about Walz. He did what was required of him. Both men took aim at what the other had said, though Vance was more aggressive in doing so according to the data I glimpsed at this morning on Instagram. Still, their overarching strategy was to champion their respective candidates rather than focus on personal jabs.
Vance, for his part, did talk policy—a rarity these days. Likely encouraged by Republican strategists and shot callers to tone down his usual incendiary rhetoric, he appeared more measured, even sincere. In that regard, he succeeded. But let’s be clear: sincerity doesn’t negate the fact that he’s a liar. The polished delivery? Expected from a Yale-educated lawyer with his political future on the line. His deception? Predictable, but no less troubling.
I would have had more to say, but, as you’ll recall, I had a restless toddler on my lap—hardly conducive to note-taking during a live debate. I could have stayed up last night and re-watch but there are people being paid to do that. I already know who I’m voting for.
This morning, I woke to see Democrats on my timeline expressing frustration. Many were disappointed that Walz didn’t take a more forceful approach, that he didn’t come out swinging to obliterate Vance. Even pastors weighed in. The moments of agreement between the two candidates seemed to vex some. But let’s be clear: this debate wasn’t meant for people like me, nor for those firmly opposed to either the Republican or Democratic ticket. It was for those with shaky allegiances, the undecideds. The frustration was really about an imagined getback.
Had both men gone full throttle, the entertainment value would have been undeniable, but the political risk just as great. It could easily have alienated the very voters they need to sway. With the race so tight, this wasn’t the moment to fan the flames of hostility. A more restrained approach was the strategy of the night.
This approach, however understated, reminds us that policy still matters. There is value in candidates articulating their visions clearly, rather than resorting to endless mudslinging. The American people—at least some—still care about ideas over theatrics. The very complaint that Walz wasn’t aggressive enough highlights a larger flaw: the idea that matching Trumpian aggression as the way to rid society of lunatics and hooligans as political champions. We seem to have embrace the idea that brute force, even verbal, is the solution to dismantling a toxic political culture.
That said, the specter of the alleged Trump assassination attempts looms in the background. The cynic in me wonders if this is a ploy to generate sympathy or to further bolster Trump’s mythology as an untouchable figure. Regardless, these incidents unfolded in a highly charged environment, swirling with violent rhetoric.
It’s a dark, chaotic backdrop, and one that didn’t need to be recreated on the debate stage.
So, those are my thoughts. Hopefully, they hold water. If not, there are plenty of pundits ready to take over from here. Hopefully they will urge for a second watch that seeks to understand the policies that the sides are bringing to the table.
Featured Image: CNN youtube video shot