Tim vs Jim: The Vice Presidential Debate Was the Revelation of the Election Season
On October 1st 2024, the debate between the vice-presidential candidates in the US election campaign took place. The event is important as part of the American democratic ritual that legitimizes the process by which a historically large and diverse but now also divided people accept a leader for a very powerful unified executive position. After two decades of continual delegitimization of American Presidents for tactical reasons of political infighting, the ritual has become even more important, as can be seen from the exuberance of the national conventions of the political parties and the unifying language that is used.
The debate was ironic for several reasons. In an electoral landscape often dominated by rhetoric lacking in substance, the debate was a tour de force of policy discussions and concrete positions. Although the moderators opened with talk of the Middle East and the recent Iranian attack on Israel, the main focus of the discussion was on concrete economic issues for the average American, from inflation and the cost of healthcare to housing costs, tariffs on goods and aid for families with children. The event was also notable for the civil tone between the candidates, who agreed with each other on many issues, politely disagreed, accepted their opponent's arguments graciously, and shook hands at the end. It also helped that none of them perceived themselves as the main actors in the debate, but as representatives of the absent presidential candidates on whose behalf they were constantly arguing. Ironically, it is precisely the absence of scandal, invective and main protagonists that reduces the relevance of an otherwise very good discussion in the American electoral landscape. People don't much care about vice presidents, who are often selected not for the broad appeal they generate (which would be threatening to the next President), but to bring a particular state or group of voters into the coalition of the presidential candidate. Moreover, it must be said that the era of powerful Vice Presidents is at an end. This era was ushered in by Dick Cheney's personality in his relationship with George W. Bush and the 9/11 attacks. However, after the "betrayal" of Donald Trump by Mike Pence in 2020, the 25th Amendment threat conveyed through Kamala Harris to Joe Biden by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to persuade him to withdraw from the campaign, and Kamala Harris' poor performance on the Southern Border and AI files assigned to her by the White House, we can assume that the next VP will not be given much to do. The next US Vice President will be a constant ambassador, ribbon cutter and ally therapist, but will not directly administer any major files and will not be left to fiddle at home where they could build a political power base from which to threaten the President especially if we are talking about Kamala Harris who may be hoping for a second term. Eventually, we can think of JD Vance replacing Donald Trump in the White House if the latter runs into health woes as a result of old age or the enormous pressures he is under, but it is not realistic to think of Tim Walz replacing Kamala Harris.
Another reason why this debate was important is the presence of the first member of a presidential team from the millennial generation, which will replace the boomers as the socio-cultural yardstick of the US in the coming years. JD Vance is part of the first American generation to mature alongside digital technology and the Internet, speaks the language of the American digital generation, and understands youth populism and its memes more than the boomer Trump. The latter seemed perplexed at times about which elements of his agenda provoked the most enthusiasm and how that enthusiasm manifested itself on the Internet. America's gerontocracy has long delayed handing over the baton, but it has begun to happen, first in Congress and now in the presidential election.
Who was the winner? I'd say JD Vance, who turned out to be what many Trumpists wanted all along - a polite, logical, coherent and erudite version of Trump. Unfortunately for the Democrats, Tim Walz is uncharismatic and doesn't come across well in body language and gestures, even when he has the right answers. Josh Shapiro would have been a much better choice if the party's activist base had not used the heckler’s veto on the issue of his support for Israel. Walz is also a millstone around the Harris campaign's neck through his role in the violent 2020 riots. The George Floyd phenomenon started in the state he leads, Minnesota, and Tim Walz's actions (or lack thereof) set the pattern for other Democratic leaders faced with destructive riots and looting that continues to this day - he didn't call out the National Guard, he didn't let police confront looters, even to protect state institutions, and he didn't advocate harsh treatment of the perpetrators. Law and order are always the trump cards of Republican campaigns, which are only rarely copied by skillful Democrats like Bill Clinton, and the nasty public disorder of the last decade has hurt Democrats in 2016, in 2020, and will give Republicans ammunition in 2024 to entice independents to vote for the Trump-Vance team.
Photo source: PxHere.com.
