US vice presidential debate: Democracy matters, as does decency

Those watching the 105-minute United States vice presidential debate between Minnesota Governor and Democrat Tim Walz and Republican Senator from Ohio, JD Vance, early Tuesday morning would have been struck by how different it was from the presidential debate. The latter, which took place on the eve of the thirteenth anniversary of 9/11 was a bare-knuckles, no-holds barred, nasty and aggressive exchange. The VP face-off, in contrast, was held on the eve of the 155th Gandhi Jayanti, the birthday of India’s apostle of peace. It was, thankfully, much more pleasant and civilized. In fact, it was a model of reasonable and respectful political exchange.

My take-away, as an Indian? I’ll pick up a phrase that was bandied about by both candidates towards the end of the debate: “democracy matters”. This is absolutely true. Not only for the US, but also for the world. But what was equally important, at least for me, is that decency matters too. Decency, affability, debate, dissent, agreeing to agree and agreeing to disagree, across the political divide. The realization that the fight between Republicans and Democrats is not a zero-sum game. Neither is it a “winner takes all” battle. This is a big lesson for us in India too. The ruling party and the opposition must, in functional democracies, work together for the greater common good. Their cooperation can be issue based, rather than ideological. But cooperation there must be.

More from Opinion

Donald Trump eyes loophole in Epstein Files Transparency Act How Japan’s latest tensions with China will fuel stronger Delhi-Tokyo strategic alignment

Who won the debate? Let’s start by acknowledging that both did well. The spin room after-chats in various channels are not reliable, because they are notoriously partisan. Walsh started a bit nervous but emerged stronger in the end. He came across as a likeable person and good governor of the state of Minnesota. His knowledge, from first-hand experience in running an important stance, was convincing whenever needed. He also addressed viewers directly, assuring them that the country would be safe if the Kamala Harris-Tim Walz ticket wins the elections just thirty-five days away.

Vance was smooth, suave, polished, and quite friendly, agreeing with Walz, nodding now and then, offering the latter his support if the Harris-Walz team won, but also attacking Harris wherever possible. Especially on illegal immigration, weak leadership, wrong economic policies, and censorship. But Vance didn’t have clear answers on gun control, housing, child care, and other contentious issues. Interestingly, on foreign policy, both agreed that Iran is the villain and that Israel would be supported by the US.

Quick Reads

View All

Head-on | The West’s veto over India’s rise has expired

India-Israel FTA talks signal how middle-power democracies can shape global economy

At the end of the debate, the two Veeps came across as acceptable running mates, both from the Midwest, both solid, hard-working, middle class, white Americans. What this means is that Vance managed to make the Republican ticket more likeable and less threatening. He normalized and stabilized Trump. He repeated Trump’s name many times, trying to make him look reliable rather than unpredictable, likeable rather than nasty. Walz, on the other hand, hardly referred to Harris by name. He kept calling her Vice-President, which was confusing.

As to fact-checkers over-doing their job, both candidates were somewhat inconsistent with facts, when it suited them. Walz came out better, though he dodged issues such Harris’ record on illegal immigration and wooly-headed economic pronouncements. Vance, on the other hand, was quickly branded the “chameleon” by hostile media anchors from the apparently “official” democratic channel, CNN. What else can they do when they don’t find him as the easily identifiable “devil with horns” as another member of their spin panel implied. But neither candidate played dirty. Vance didn’t even try to score points on the two assassination attempts on Trump.

Overall, Vance came out as the stronger, more masculine, and decisive –and yes, younger–   of the two candidates. Why is this important? Because Americans like strong leaders, not necessarily nice guys. Vance managed to show he could be both. Nice guy when he wanted to be and tough guy when he had to. Being the younger of the two, he was also the sharper  and more energetic. That he is younger helps offset Trump, who is almost eighty.

In the end, however, the choice is not between Vance and Walz. The contest is between Trump and Harris. The two presidential candidates have been sharply contrasted and differentiated in the public mind. The American people will have to decide if they want change or more of the same, when it comes to who runs the country. How numbers stack up in the electoral college with just over a month to go is still uncertain. It seems like a race too close to call. But anti-incumbency is a factor that cannot be overlooked or entirely ignored.

Trump may not be kind, likeable, or even what we consider a normal type of politician, but he does represent a decisive break with Joe Biden’s Democratic presidency. Vance, on the other hand, was Mr Congeniality. He was comfortable, poised, and unruffled. He may just have succeeded in pushing the needle closer to a vote for change. Especially, with the Iranian missiles going off in the night sky, Americans are likely to vote for a stronger presidency.

The writer is an author and columnist. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.