USA 2024: – 33, Walz-Vance, debate, civil tones, but distant on migrants and abortion

An informative, wide-ranging debate, without particularly aggressive tones from either side: the live televised confrontation on CBS between U.S. 2024 deputy candidates Tim Walz, a Democrat, and JD Vance, a Republican, will probably not turn out to be the highlight of the race for the White House, but it did show the good face of U.S. politics. The Washinton Post notes this, with a hint of irony and a dose of surprise, in its analysis, “It was remarkably civil.”

Jim Kessler, political analyst at the center-left think tank Third Way, explains, “Debates between deputies don’t win elections, but they do help create, or dismantle, a moment… You don’t score touchdowns, but you can gain yards or you can lose yards.”

Vance, a dark blue suit and tie that was more pink than red, and Walz, a black suit and blue tie as a matter of course, shook hands before taking their places behind their podiums and, at the end, waving to each other, showed a special cordiality as their wives took the stage. Perhaps, so much fair-play was fostered by the fact that the two did not have to sell themselves and their ideas, but were there to act as placemen for their bosses, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump: after all, they were two ‘under masters.

Walz started off slow, a bit hesitant, but he gained confidence and solidity as the minutes went by and as topics congenial to him like abortion and the defense of democracy came up. Vance immediately seemed confident and sharp in his assertions, especially on migrants, which, just as Trump always does, he tried to slip into every answer; but he also tried to smooth over positions on abortion and “rewrite the history” – the expression is from the Washington Post – of the Trump presidency.

Walz-Vance, the last debate, on Carter’s century day

It was, probably, the last debate of this campaign, given Trump’s refusal to have another confrontation with Harris, after the one on January 10. A debate that coincided with former President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday: he is the first president in U.S. history to reach that milestone.

In the WP summary, Walz and Vance went deep on individual policies, climate and energy, the economy and inflation, immigration, health care, abortion, attacking each other’s presidential candidates and trying to provide reasons to vote for their champion.

Both were called by the debate moderators, the timely and effective journalists Margaret Brennan and Norah O’Donnell, to account for their lies or contradictions; and, in one case, their normally open microphones were turned off, to prevent them from talking over each other. And both of them, with some reluctance, did ‘mea culpa’: Vance said he was wrong, when, as recently as four years ago, he was criticizing Trump; and Walz acknowledged that he did not get it all right about his time in China.

Walz-Vance, the contents of the debate

Vance, 40 and bearded, exploited his telegeny; Walz, 60 and pot-bellied, held his own, despite some hesitation. A hot CNN poll gives the Democrat winning at 51 percent, by a short pasting.

Per the Washington Post, Walz and Vance “showed up on the national stage and had more in-depth discussions than Trump and Biden and then Trump and Harris had.” The New York Times writes, “More politics, less banter. Vance and Walz have different views on wars, immigration, the economy, taxes and more.”

A conservative website, the Daily Signal, resorts to a play on words, “Best in the Midwest,” because both vice candidates have often referred to their origins: Vance is a senator from Ohio, Walz was born in Nebraska and is governor of Minnesota.

Trump did not refrain from commenting on X live: he obviously accused the moderators of being biased and wanted to point out his position on abortion, “Everybody knows I would not support a federal abortion ban, I would veto it.”

Walz-Vance, the pluses and minuses of the debate

The debate started with wars, or rather what is happening in the Middle East: neither Walz nor Vance responded directly to the question of whether they would endorse a preemptive Israeli attack on Iran, but Vance evoked the idea of “peace through force” and attributed to the “fear engendered by such force” the fact that Trump has not had to manage conflicts in his tenure.

Walz, on the other hand, noted the “fundamental” need for “stable” leadership, while allies perceive Trump’s leadership as “fickle” (recalling that former advisers describe him as “the most imperfect being they have ever met”).

In the most effective set of lines, in the final peroration, Walz, who calls to coalition around Harris Taylor Swift and Dick Cheney, says, “Trump wants you to feel fear… Kamala and I, like Franklyn D. Roosevelt, think the only thing to be afraid of is fear itself.”

Instead, Vance says, “Rich and poor in America must be able to turn on the heat, eat well, have a home… If you can’t do that, it’s Kamala Harris’ fault.”