One of the defining aspects of the politics of our time is the blatant disrespect candidates show for one another. Though the polarization between parties is nothing new, the rise of Trumpism has coincided with historically high levels of what American University professor Thomas Zeitzoff calls “nasty politics.” Dishonesty, name-calling, and harmful rhetoric constantly fill the political headlines at the highest rate since the Civil War.
Recently, videos have resurfaced showing a time when respectful disagreements and acknowledgment of common ground were not uncommon. For example, former Senator and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain reassured a victim of misinformation that Barack Obama was a “decent person” despite their disagreements. At a 2012 presidential debate, Romney and Obama began the night by wishing each other well and cracking jokes. Unsurprisingly, people see these videos and want a return to this more courteous environment.
Though I anticipated an eloquent and poised performance from the Yale Law graduate J.D. Vance, his personability and respectful demeanor throughout the vice presidential debate exceeded my expectations of what was possible in the current political climate. It was a debate in which Walz and Vance frequently agreed, thanked each other for raising certain points, and refrained from hurling blatant insults at one another.
Headlines immediately labeled the debate as “remarkably” and “weirdly” civil. Respectively, Walz and Vance saw a 13 and 11 percent increase in favorability after the debate. It appeared to be a light indicating the end of the tunnel for those who have seen too much hostility and petulance in today’s politics.
Instead, I urge you to overlook the pleasantries and handshakes and to view this night as what it truly was: a confirmation of the fact that we remain far from political progress. Vance’s debate was riddled with misinformation, false claims of unity between the parties, and the same undemocratic attitude we have seen from the political right for years. Presenting himself as a reasonable candidate places voters in danger of judging Vance based on ideas that he simply does not have.
When asked about abortion, Vance shared an anecdote of a “dear” friend who was thankful for her abortion and repeated his desire to “win back people’s trust” on the issue. To an uninformed viewer, this response seems rather moderate, particularly after Vance denied supporting a national abortion ban. However, Vance’s stance on abortion is anything but moderate. He previously did support a national abortion ban with no exceptions for rape and incest and called “giving up on the newborn…politically dumb and morally repugnant.”
Some of Vance’s answers contained the usual lies about what Biden’s administration has achieved: He claimed that Harris had failed to restore American energy production, when in reality, the U.S. produced a record amount of oil and natural gas last year while investing significantly in solar and wind power. He also criticized Harris for “let[ting] fentanyl into our communities at record levels” through illegal immigration, when in fact, close to 90 percent of fentanyl is smuggled by people legally crossing the border and has been seized by the border authority.
One of his more inexplicable lies was that Trump “salvaged Obamacare” and worked in a “bipartisan way” to do so. In fact, Trump signed an executive order to eliminate Obamacare and attempted to “repeal and replace” the law by cutting spending on advertising and circulating videos to criticize the law.
The lie about Obamacare is a direct example of pretending to bridge the political divide for the sake of appealing to voters. It’s easy to see how viewers would fall into the trap of hearing this statement and assuming our country is moving to a better and more unified place while the repeated dishonesty and subsequent distrust actually pushes the parties further apart.
The most talked about moment of the debate came when Vance finally showed his true colors. He refused to acknowledge the 2020 election, repeatedly deflecting the question to maintain his clean performance on the night. Election denial opposes the peaceful transition of power and undermines democracy as a whole. In denying the results, it became clear that Vance is not interested in moving politics to a better place, despite how he may try to present himself.
While I remain hopeful that one day we can put this era of political animosity behind us, I do not see this debate as a step in the right direction. No matter how refreshing it is to watch a debate where insults were not hurled back and forth, it is essential for viewers to be wary of dishonest rhetoric. Vance is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, looking to capitalize on viewers vulnerable to his lies.
The Zeitgeist aims to publish ideas worth discussing. The views presented are solely those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board.
