Vice Presidential Debate: Vance Remained Composed, while Walz Struggled To Find his Footing

Takeaways from 2024 the Vice Presidential Debate

Two weeks ago, one of my classmates asked me to bring popcorn and drinks for a small debate watch party. While I envisioned candidates articulating their positions with coherent arguments about policies to improve the lives of the United States citizens, my expectation did not match what I saw. 

With less than a month left in the race for the White House, many voters are struggling to choose the right candidate. Indeed, the performances of both Kamala Harris of the Democratic Party and Donald Trump of the Republican Party strayed far from the traditional notion of  a debate, as the presidential debate devolved into meaningless mudslinging. However, the Vice Presidential debate offered a glimmer of hope for American politics.

Unlike the presidential debate, the overall tone of the Vice Presidential debate remained civil and composed, focusing on policy differences rather than crude criticisms. While Kamala Harris and Donald Trump engaged in personal insults and irrelevant claims, Tim Walz and JD Vance embodied the true spirit of debate. 

JD Vance, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, showed his rhetorical skills from the outset, by clearly representing the core values of Trumpism. Vance’s composure stood in direct contrast with Donald Trump’s emotional agitation. Throughout the debate, Vance was undeterred by challenges from left-wing broadcaster CBS and interruptions from liberal moderators. 

On the other side of the aisle, Walz, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, took a much longer time to find his footing. He appeared nervous and hesitant, delivering long and jumbled responses. When pressed about a discrepancy between his description of his life and the real events, Walz struggled to answer the question and attempted to divert the topic with, “I grew up in a small, rural Nebraska, town of 400” without ever addressing the question. Walz’s rhetoric was reminiscent of that of Kamala Harris herself, who repeatedly mentions her childhood being “raised in a middle-class family” in the hope of sidestepping difficult questions. Indeed, Walz appears to acknowledge misstatement about his personal experiences. For example, in 2018 he claimed to have experience with “weapons of war that [he] carried in war” during his military service, despite never seeing combat. 

Later in the debate, J.D Vance challenged the Democrats by questioning “what has Kamala Harris done” over the last three and a half years. He emphasized the record-breaking number of illegal immigrants, as illegal crossings at the “open” Southern border skyrocketed from 0.5 million in 2019 to 2 million in 2023. Moreover, Vance pointed out the extreme inflation affecting cost of living in the U.S.—the staggering 19.4 percent price increase under the Biden-Harris administration according to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Ironically, instead of mitigating these issues, liberal politicians led by Kamala Harris shifted the blame to the former Trump administration. This attitude not only communicates indifference toward those pressing issues, but also reveals Kamala Harris’s inability to craft effective policies. Indeed, Vance is right to argue that Kamala Harris “had the opportunities to enact all of these great policies,” yet she failed to carry them out. 

The Democratic Party often emphasizes the importance of democracy, but JD Vance rightly points out the irony of the Democrats being “undemocratic” with respect to social media censorship. Vance began his speech by criticizing the Biden-Harris administration for infringing on the fundamental right to freedom of speech. “It is a threat to democracy,” Vance argued, calling attention to the White House’s restrictive policies targeting big technology companies, notably Facebook, during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, regrets that he was not more outspoken about censorship of ideas while under pressure from the White House. It is the government's duty to foster democracy and protect freedom of expression, even if it leads to divisive disagreements. Afterall, freedom of speech is one of the foundations of American democracy. 

The multiple polls on the performance of debates indicate that the debate itself may be inconsequential to sway the decisions of voters. However, it is undeniable that the 90 minutes of discussion paved a strong foundation for the Republican party. If Trump loses the election, Vance’s collected and coherent performance will help establish his credentials as the leader of the next generation of the Republican Party. If Trump wins, Vance’s position will be further solidified. In just 90 minutes, while Walz struggled under pressure, Vance successfully transformed his image from a “creepy” and “weird” character into a candidate with a clear blueprint to make America great again. 

Matthew Yoon