If you tuned in to Tuesday’s vice presidential debate, you are now deeply familiar with the life stories of Senator JD Vance and Governor Tim Walz. It was as if they could not help but lull us to sleep with long and boring prologues about their childhoods before answering any question. By the time they got around to saying anything even remotely relevant, we had already forgotten what was asked.
The problem with Vance is that he’s an unprincipled yes-man whose sole purpose is to further his political career. He has changed many of his views with the intent of being able to parrot Trump’s views. This was clear from his answers to questions about everything from abortion to Trump’s election denial.
Before Trump was elected in 2016, when it was politically safe to criticize Trump, he called him unfit for office. Later, when the landscape changed in 2020, he privately called Trump America’s Hitler. Now that he stands to benefit as Trump’s VP, he’s more than happy to stand side-by-side with his Hitler. He has morphed into a different person like the conniving, dishonest politician that he is.
Vance was asked what responsibility the Trump administration would have to reduce the impact of climate change. Vance said, “Let’s say it’s true [that carbon emissions are driving climate change], if you believe that, what would you do? You’d want to reshore as much American manufacturing as possible and you’d want to produce as much energy as possible in the United States of America because we are the cleanest economy in the entire world.”
So, a potential future vice president of the United States doesn’t have the ability to think about implications. Vance failed to consider the fact that the reason imports from places like China and India are affordable is precisely because of their lower wages and lax environmental protections. If the products we currently consume from those countries were instead produced in America, the higher wages, safety standards, and environmental restrictions would make those products many times more expensive.
When questioned about how economists at the Wharton School estimated that Trump’s economic plan would add trillions to the deficit, Vance said, “A lot of those same economists attacked Donald Trump’s plans and they have PhDs but they don’t have common sense and they don’t have wisdom.”
How dumb must economics students across the country be feeling? They’ve been wasting years studying complex micro and macroeconomic concepts to have thoughtful and informed opinions about economic policy when they could have just consulted their gut. Why didn’t Walz hold Vance accountable for any of this?
This leads us to Governor Tim Walz’s performance. The biggest takeaway is that Walz failed to capitalize on Vance’s many lies and bizarre positions. A competent and knowledgeable person would have pressed Vance about his many dubious economic claims.
When Vance expressed disdain for expert opinion, it presented a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that Trump’s VP pick is a wildly overconfident know-nothing who thinks he knows better than those who have dedicated their lives to studying their specific field of inquiry – not necessarily in those exact words.
Instead, Walz spoke to the camera and talked to the public about how they should listen to their doctors if they need heart surgery. A much better strategy would have been to link Vance’s comment to a vicious character trait shared by Trump and his running mate.
Related Articles
California’s financial state deteriorates as officials slack on making financial data public
With his presidential dreams crushed, Gavin Newsom continues to phone it in as governor
Susan Shelley: My picks for the November election
The vice presidential debate proved we need a second Trump-Harris debate
Real-world lesson: Ending rent control boosts housing supply
When Vance pressed Walz about the language used in Minnesota statutes that Vance falsely claimed allowed doctors to refrain from providing life-saving care to babies who survive abortions, he simply repeated that Vance’s statement was false. Vance pressed him to explain why his characterization of the statute was inaccurate but Walz missed the opportunity to tell him exactly what the statute expressed. He should have been prepared for this given that he signed it into law. Instead, this exchange made it seem like Vance’s claim was well-grounded.
Then again when Vance refused to answer whether he agreed with Trump that climate change is a hoax, Walz should have pressured him to answer. The same was the case with Vance’s pathetic and misleading response that minimized Trump’s election denial.
It was frustrating to read so many prominent media outlets praise their performance. The failings were clear but I suppose that the bar was set quite low after the presidential debate.
Rafael Perez is a columnist for the Southern California News Group. He is a doctoral candidate in philosophy at the University of Rochester. You can reach him at rafaelperezocregister@gmail.com.