Wednesday, November 6, 2024
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Vices And Virtues

The vice-presidential candidates in the US election faced off in a televised debate last week, each with different objectives because the presidential candidates, whom they understudy, are so different. So, after 90 minutes of folksy back-and-forth, did it really matter who won or lost?

By Kenneth Tiven

Ohio Senator JD Vance, Donald Trump’s Republican running mate, showed his legal training at Yale University Law School in framing answers that conveniently left out salient facts, as lawyers are not duty-bound to provide all the facts. He apparently does not share Trump’s addiction to outright falsehoods. The abrasiveness Vance has demonstrated in friendly interviews on right-wing media was suppressed.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, was less exuberant than when campaigning, while clarifying and explaining Kamala Harris and Democratic positions, especially on abortion and the economy.

The debate opened with questions about the Middle East—would they support a pre-emptive strike on Iran by Israel? Walz said: “Israel’s ability to defend itself is absolutely fundamental” after the Hamas attacks on October 7, this year. Pivoting quickly to remind viewers that Trump’s own national security advisers had said it is dangerous for Trump to be in charge, Walz said: “When our allies see Donald Trump turn towards Vladimir Putin, turn towards North Korea, when we start to see that type of fickleness about holding the coalitions together, we will stay committed.” Vance said it was up to Israel to decide what it needs to do. He claimed Trump “consistently made the world more secure”.

Vance was anti-Trump two years ago, but changed, he says, because he realized his opinions were wrong. On immigration, he blamed “tens of millions of immigrants” for dozens of problems in America and insisted that the massive deportation of people without legal status was a critical issue. It would reduce housing costs and give US citizens access to jobs, he said, without noting that they did mostly jobs Americans don’t appear to want. Republicans believe kicking out immigrants and their American citizen children is the all-purpose solution to any domestic problem.

Walz said Trump had persuaded Congressional Republicans to vote against a bipartisan Border bill that would have reduced border immigration. Vance resorted to blaming Harris for not personally solving the immigration crisis during her three years in office. In these immigration discussions, nobody ever talks about the dismal conditions in certain central and South American countries that make people risk a long and dangerous journey to America’s southern border. Vance blamed Harris personally for the amount of fentanyl smuggled into the USA. It kills users of street drugs when too much fentanyl is added to popular narcotics.

Vance was most defensive on healthcare. On the campaign trail, he had said that during his presidency, Trump implemented changes that “salvaged the Affordable Care Act (ACA), dubbed Obamacare, which was doing disastrously until Trump came about… and that Trump worked in a bipartisan way to ensure that Americans had access to affordable care”.

Walz, visibly bristled, rebutted Vance, pointing out that it was Republican Senator John McCain who cast the vote that saved Obamacare. The facts are that during his presidency, Trump undermined the ACA—for example, by slashing funding for advertising and free “navigators” who help people sign up for a health insurance plan on HealthCare.gov. And rather than deciding to “save” the ACA, he tried hard to get Congress to repeal it, failing with McCain’s vote and thumbs down gesture on a late-night Senate vote.

Naturally, Vance praised a second term for Trump and the Republican position on crucial issues, especially immigration and the economy. He tried his best to avoid the abortion issue, which is a significant for many families, women and young voters.

Walz used his folksy demeanour and progressive political record to paint Vance as an inexperienced Trump clone, likely to inherit the presidency considering the age and mental health of the 78-year-old Trump.

Was it civil? Yes, in a contained way. The CBS News decision not to have its moderators fact-check gave Vance a break, although when he argued that a follow-up question amounted to fact-checking his previous answer, they shut off his microphone, smiled at the camera, and said: “They can’t hear you your mic is off.” The Vance fabrication that Haitian immigrants in an Ohio city were killing pets for food never entered into a detailed discussion. Trump, has been making up fake stories about immigrants for years and persists despite fact-checkers demonstrating the falsehoods.

Vance claimed tariffs on imported goods would produce more than enough money to pay for some childcare programmes. Walz pointed out that tariffs on goods are a tax paid by consumers. Not admitting to who pays for tariffs is a core Trump position.

Walz appeared a bit nervous at the start, but settled down. He brought up the deaths of police officers from the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol building by Trump’s supporters and Trump’s threats to prosecute critics and pardon convicted demonstrators. Vance tried to portray Trump’s objections in the 2020 election as just some healthy civil discourse, neglecting the reality that Trump and his allies have been charged with a conspiracy to overthrow the results of the election, including drawing up fake slates of electors.

Walz wasn’t at his extemporaneous best, but he did catch Vance dismissing a question about Trump’s efforts to steal the 2020 election. Vance said it was all a big misunderstanding. Walz alertly said: “This is one {issue} that we are miles apart on. This was a threat to our democracy in a way that we had not seen. And it manifested itself be­cause of Donald Trump’s inability to say, he is still saying, he didn’t lose the election. I would just ask: Did he lose the 2020 election?”

“Tim, I’m focused on the future,” Vance said, asking an irrelevant question: “Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 Covid situation?” “That is a damning non-answer,” Walz shot back.

Vance did not answer a question which was: Would you seek to challenge this year’s election results?

Vance did better than Trump, whose debate with Harris was considered a disaster for the former president. Vance is a hardcore MAGA-inspired lawyer/politician; he ducked a discussion of the Project 2025 plan that reflects Republican desires for a more dictatorial presidency that hews to 19th-century conceptions of societal roles. “A president’s words matter,” Walz said in one of his best moments in the debate.

“Look at vice-presidential debates as ways to create momentum or blunt momentum,” says Jim Kessler, a Democratic strategist. Using an American football analogy, he explained: “You don’t score touchdowns in vice-presidential debates, but you can gain yards, or you can lose yards.”

For many voters, it might be scored as a 2-2 tie in soccer. 

—The writer has worked in senior positions at The Washington Post, NBC, ABC and CNN and also consults for several Indian channels

spot_img

News Update