This Tuesday, Tim Walz and JD Vance became the first line of defense for the Democratic and Republican candidates for the US presidency, in the only debate between the two and, predictably, the last opportunity for the campaigns to present their programs – or tear down those of the opposite—to a national audience. The experienced Walz, governor of Minnesota, and the novice Vance introduced themselves to the country and the course of the face-to-face changed the tables: the young senator from Ohio was more convincing than the veteran Democratic governor, although without being able to clearly establish who was the winner, and who the loser, of the date. Something similar to courtesy reigned between the two, which made the debate flow despite the rigid format of scheduled questions and answers.
It was a respectful debate, with a solvent Vance in front of the cameras and a Walz so folksy that at times he bordered on simplicity, although he became looser as the 90 minutes of the meeting progressed. It seemed that, compared to the previous presidential debates – those of Trump against Joe Biden, in June, and Kamala Harris, last month – they even did politics in a civilized way, with their inconsistencies and their contradictions and an instantaneous attempt at verification at some points. In the end, Vance and Walz shook hands cordially after exchanging frequent winks of complicity, at least on paper: “I agree with Tim” or “I agree with the governor” sounded often. Courtesy did not, however, cloud the deep differences in programs, especially notable in immigration, the economy and the state of democracy, over which they clashed defending a very different version, at the antipodes, of what happened in January 2021 when Donald Trump tried to prevent the certification of Joe Biden’s victory.
Trump was the most cited proper name along with Harris. Holed up in the defense of their leaders, with the rigidity of immutable pawns, Vance and Walz often went off on tangents in their answers so as not to compromise the credit of the presidential hopefuls. It happened, for example, in the question about abortion or in relation to foreign policy: the escalation of war in the Middle East was the first question, in which Trump was presented as a guarantor of global stability (Vance) and as a danger to the world. (Walz), but both avoided answering whether they would support a preemptive attack by Israel on Iran. “We have to support our allies when they fight the bad guys,” Vance simply said, stressing that Trump “gave stability to the world” during his presidency. Walz was much more oblique in his response.
Abortion, immigration and the economy were the issues in which the greatest discrepancies were seen; also those used as a refrain, especially by Vance, whether it was relevant or not, while talking about other issues (“Harris’ inflation” or “Harris’s open borders” were the Republican’s catchphrases). After almost tiptoeing over climate change, a phenomenon that for the Republican would be corrected by producing more energy in the United States “and not buying solar panels in China,” the candidates were asked about the mass deportation plans defended by the Republicans. Vance denounced the existence of 25 million irregulars “who take jobs and housing from Americans” and put himself in profile when asked if he would support the separation of parents and children at the border (“we already have separation at the border, because the Mexican cartels use children as mules,” he noted without giving any explanation). “First we have to stop the bleeding, because it is Harris’s fault for opening the borders and that is where a lot of fentanyl enters the country, in records never seen before.” The first thing, he said, was to build a wall and deport those 25 million irregulars, “a million of them criminals,” so that “the illegals do not take the salaries of our citizens,” abounding in the hoaxes and exaggerations expressed by Trump. on the particular.
Walz showed a certain waist in his reply, accusing Trump of torpedoing a legislative project to reinforce security on the border, “with 15,000 new border agents,” because, he said, if the law went ahead, the Republican would be left without an important issue. campaign, that of immigration.
He accused his rival of “dehumanizing and vilifying” human beings, such as the Haitians with legal refugee status in Springfield, Ohio—unwitting protagonists of one of the Republicans’ biggest immigration hoaxes—and clashed with Vance in an attempt verification of arguments that the debate moderators frustrated. Once again, the inexperienced Republican demonstrated more ease at short distances—and in front of the cameras—than his antagonist, who was progressively gaining space. With the microphones closed after consuming the two-minute response, they even tried to rephrase the presenter’s question.
The economy, one of the voters’ main concerns, once again placed them at the opposite end despite the friendly tone of the discussion, especially what was related to inflation. Walz defended the current Administration by highlighting social measures: stating how it has limited the price of insulin or granted credits to families. “We have done the right thing for families,” he says. “When we do this, the system works and more people participate in it and achieve what they need.” Vance countered that Harris should have taken the necessary steps as vice president, not as a candidate, to prevent food and housing prices from rising by 25% and 60%, respectively. The economy has never done as well as under Trump, his spokesman said. number two“with an inflation of 1.5%”. In his turn to respond, Walz recalled how the Republican’s tax reform “benefited the rich.” “How is it going to be fair that we all pay taxes and that Donald Trump has not paid them in 15 years,” he added.
References to its origins
Both brought out their origins, Vance above all, elaborating on the humility of his family, with difficulties making ends meet “or turning on the heating on a cold winter night”, an image that he took up at the close of his speech. . Walz defended the middle class from which he comes, “and that is talking about housing, the plan for three million new homes that Harris proposes, because a house is not an asset to speculate on, it is much more than that. The economy works best when it works for all of us.” He frequently cited examples of success from Minnesota, a love that could distance him from the viewer of a national audience.
On abortion, Walz went deeper, with mixed results. The moderator asked him if he supports abortion up to the ninth month, because Minnesota’s law is one of the least restrictive in the country, but the Democrat avoided answering, instead explaining the case of a woman from Georgia who lost her life while traveling to another State to abort when theirs prohibits it. “Georgia, one of the restrictive states… if I had lived in Minnesota, I would have survived,” he added.
As was the case with Harris in her debate with Trump, it became clear that abortion is a winning card for Democrats, given that Vance said in 2022 that he wanted terminations of pregnancy to be illegal throughout the country. But as he did with immigration, modulating his position, the senator chose, as Trump does, to defend the argument that the best thing is to let the States regulate however they want on the reproductive freedom of women, given that the United States It is a very large country “and very diverse”, and also “confusing”. In this matter they also participated in an attempted scuffle that did not escalate.
The same thing happened when addressing arms control, although the clear differences between the two were resolved without too much acrimony. Also in defense of public health coverage programs, a discussion in which Walz reproached Republicans for wanting to leave out of the system “the elderly and those with cancer, those with previous medical history and problems,” as that Vance responded by stating that if Obamacare, medical coverage for low incomes, is maintained, it is thanks to Trump’s efforts during his presidency. Both candidates showed some agreement regarding the relevance of paid paternity leave, to prevent one of the parents from having to choose between parenting and work, although Vance declared himself above all “pro-family”, without further adjectives.
The last point of friction was the state of democracy and, specifically, whether events such as the assault on the Capitol by a horde of Trumpists threaten the system of government and its institutions JD Vance tried to turn the page on January 6, 2021 and of Trump’s refusal to acknowledge his 2020 loss to Joe Biden. Walz offered what may have been his most convincing moment of the night, attacking Trump for trying to torpedo the peaceful handover of power. For Vance, the real threat to democracy is not acts like the assault, he said, “but the censorship of free speech.” “Hillary Clinton also complained that Trump had stolen the election with Russian interference on social media.” [en 2016]”, he argued. “January 6 was not a Facebook post,” Walz responded bluntly, much more confident than in the previous 90 minutes of the debate, making it clear that his performance in 2020 disqualifies him from being president. Vance insisted that there is no threat to democracy, but rather a problem of censorship. Walz therefore made up for it in the last point of the debate, perhaps a little late, when Vance was accumulating advantage, but the handshake with which they ended their interventions suggested that politics had been discussed and that, for one night, One could also dream of the possibility of doing politics.
