In U.S. politics, just like the vice presidents themselves, debates tend to feel insignificant until they suddenly matter. The latest vice presidential debate, likely the final one for the 2024 election cycle featuring Senator JD Vance and Governor Tim Walz, may not hold much weight in the grand scheme of things.
Organized by CBS, this debate adhered to similar rules as the previous match-up between presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. There was no live audience and minimal fact-checking. The primary difference was that the candidates’ microphones remained active when they weren’t speaking— a setup that was only deviated from by the moderators once.
From a superficial, optics-based perspective, one might argue that the format benefitted Vance, who managed to portray himself as a rational, commonsense candidate. Meanwhile, Walz also held his own, bolstering his image as a steady, likable figure.
Ultimately, there was no definitive winner, but the discussion brought forth substantial topics.
A Nation and Global Community in Crisis
The CBS moderators opened the debate by highlighting the numerous crises currently affecting both the United States and the world. They specifically pointed to the escalating situation in the Middle East, Hurricane Helene, and a labor strike, starting the conversation with Iran.
In an odd turn, instead of asking the candidates how they might de-escalate tensions or foster peace in the region, they inquired whether the candidates would support an Israeli “preemptive strike” on Iran.
Catch off guard by the pointedness of the question, Walz stumbled initially but managed to recover. Vance, on the other hand, confidently articulated his ticket’s strong backing of Israel.
The fact that neither candidate challenged the casual notion of a “preemptive strike” speaks volumes about America’s current stance in global leadership.
Unlike the previous presidential debate, the crisis precipitated by Hurricane Helene prompted discussions on climate change right off the bat. While both candidates promoted the bolstering of fossil fuel production and consumption at home, Vance’s response revealed the underlying extremism of his political stance.
Referring to the tragic fatalities in states like North Carolina, Vance cautiously labeled the hurricane’s victims as “innocent.” He specifically vowed that a future Trump administration would back “citizens” impacted by disasters fueled by climate change, like Helene.
These subtle allusions to race and immigration were skillfully crafted to support Trump and Vance’s theories about an America under threat, facing an “invasion” of “illegal aliens.”
Vance adeptly sanitized Trump’s rhetoric, making substantial efforts to present himself as reasonable. Walz’s challenge, along with the overarching Democratic platform, lies in trying to engage with right-leaning perspectives on immigration without alienating the party’s diverse support base. Whether anyone will find this approach convincing remains to be seen.
Matt Rourke/AP
Not surprisingly, Walz excelled on topics favoring Democrats, such as healthcare and reproductive rights. Vance was cautious not to commit to a national abortion ban, a stance favored by many in Trump’s conservative circle. Instead, he spoke in favor of a “minimum national standard,” which effectively conveys the same idea.
A particularly striking moment occurred towards the end. Just like in that initial debate between President Joe Biden and Trump ages ago, the subject of U.S. electoral integrity wasn’t broached until later in the 90-minute discussion.
When pressed by Walz about Trump’s refusal to concede the 2020 election, Vance sidestepped the issue, asserting he was “focused on the future.” That future, as Walz pointed out, carries real and credible threats to U.S. democracy stemming from Vance’s running mate.
Quiet Conspiracies
Unlike his running mate, Vance largely refrained from promoting conspiracy theories about disputed elections or other extreme right-wing topics. However, in his closing remarks, he alluded to the underlying issues that allow such theories to thrive.
Attempting to temper Trump’s dismal rhetoric around “American carnage,” Vance leaned into an all-too-familiar narrative of American exceptionalism. In closing, he expressed pride in living “in the most incredible country in the world. But…”
It is what follows that “but” where conspiracy theories can fester. If the U.S. is truly the greatest nation, how can there be a “but”? The implication must be that its success is being undermined by covert actions against it.
In last night’s debate, Walz did little to dispel that notion, while Vance subtly expanded upon it.
The fact that neither candidate definitively succeeded might not ultimately impact the election outcome. Nonetheless, the question that lingers after that “but…” weighs heavily on us all.