Comments
GELFAND’S WORLD - I wonder how many of us remember the dramatic moment when Vice Presidential candidate Dan Quayle was told by his debate opponent Lloyd Bentsen, "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." It was supposed to be the killer line, that year's equivalent to Ronald Reagan's "There you go again." It was repeated in the Democratic campaign ads, and the end result was -- nothing.
Vice Presidential debates are not generally decisive. At least that's what we are told by learned scholars and by the results of elections. So why care about Tuesday's debate between Republican candidate J.D. Vance and Democratic candidate Tim Walz? Well, there is the obvious reason that it may tell us something about the candidates themselves, and there is the fleeting possibility that a dramatically awful performance by one candidate could have had some effect on the upcoming election. After all, the swing state polling data suggests at least one or two fairly close contests, so a decisive victory by the one side or the other could have swayed the results.
For good or ill, there was no such decisive victory for either side, but there was one lesson that is, I think, of importance, even though the media don't seem to have caught on very well.
First, what everyone agrees on: J.D. Vance showed that he could talk like a real human being. He could be conciliatory: He stated that the two of them were in agreement on much of what they were saying. He was civil, participating in the hand shaking, the mutual congratulating, and the rather ritualistic introduction of the wives. The moments following the debate showed the four of them in what looked like a polite chat.
Some of my friends were sorry that this had been allowed to happen. They stated directly that they were hoping for a knockout blow against Vance, much as Harris had delivered against Trump in the presidential debate.
Allow me to disagree.
What Tuesday's debate showed was that it is possible -- even in these times -- for a Democrat and a Republican to appear on the same stage together and carry on a conversation about weighty issues without calling each other the most vile names. They made clear that they will disagree about things such as a blanket 20% tariff, but there was an attempt by Vance to suggest that the other side would be allowed to hold a differing view on abortion law.
In other words, it was a more traditional political debate, and it signified a return to traditional norms and practices, even if it was only for these few minutes.
Yes, the overall theatrical experience for the viewing public involved the process of humanizing Vance, something that isn't of benefit to the Democratic candidacy in the immediate future. The alternative might have been for Vance to deliver more of his traditional stump speech, including references to cat ladies and dog-eating immigrants.
But the American viewers got a chance to see an alternate reality on Tuesday night, one in which opposing sides were willing to engage in at least the minimal level of mutual respect for each other as human beings. It was actually an exercise of that oldest of old cliches, that one can disagree without being disagreeable.
So here is where I suggest that the national media (and even some Democrats) are missing a clear and frankly obvious story. The message was that Donald Trump is such a toxic presence that he makes civil discourse impossible. In his absence, it is possible. He will continue to push the envelope -- they're eating the dogs -- and he will continue to accuse every single person who runs against him of being the worst president in history or a criminal who deserves prosecution. He managed to get both of those nasties in within the space of a few days over the past week. Over a modest disagreement on border policy, he insisted that Kamala Harris should resign and be prosecuted. He went stark raving nuts over the Vice Presidential debate, as his tweets showed.
The Democrats ought to be pointing out that it is possible to hold a civil discussion as long as the opposition is not calling them commies (something Trump continues to say about Harris). It would also help for the Republicans to lay off their current slander that Democrats support the option of post-birth execution of newborns. It's something that Trump continues to claim.
There are lots of other disagreements. Perhaps the most laughable was this one: Vance claimed that it was President Donald Trump who saved the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) from its own weaknesses. I wonder what planet Vance was on where this occurred. The rest of us remember the 50 or so attempts by congressional Republicans to overturn the ACA, including one dramatic moment where none other than Republican senator John McCain said no, in a dramatic moment when he used the thumbs-down gesture. No, Senator Vance, it wasn't your party that preserved the right to get health insurance even when you have a preexisting condition.
But it is possible to discuss and debate the idea of health insurance. If we can get beyond the merely rhetorical games of calling your opponents stupid and criminal, we could discuss a process of moving the United States at least a little bit of the way towards the health care systems of Europe.
I will concede the point that Vance was being disingenuous in his Vice-Presidential debate. We also know that he went right back to the nasty-boy routine within hours after the final handshake. But in so doing, Vance (and indirectly Donald Trump) are showing that they too recognize that they don't always have to behave in the Trump manner.
Tuesday night's debate was a momentary return to a tradition that has existed off and on since the Nixon-Kennedy debates, and could one day return as an accepted practice. It seems unlikely at present, considering the investment the right wing has in its propaganda apparatus. But we have the model for a more civilized approach if only we choose as a people to adopt it.
Of course that model includes the acceptance by all sides of election returns. It includes the peaceful transition of power, including the ability of the congress to engage in its ritual of counting the electoral votes and declaring a winner without first having to shelter in the Capitol garage to protect itself from the angry mob.
In the meanwhile, Trump will continue to be Trump, with all the ugliness that this implies. The latest as of Thursday morning is that Trump is now promising to deport the Haitians who are currently living peacefully and legally in Springfield.
We were shown the alternative on Tuesday evening. Let's see if enough Republicans (and even Trump supporters) will decide that it's worth going back to the more traditional approach to politics.
There is one more thing worth noting from Tuesday's debate. In trying to sell himself as a conciliatory and even humane figure, J.D. Vance accepted a few positions that would put him within the liberal grouping, including his admittedly vague statement that the Republican Party needs to regain the trust of the American people when it comes to abortion. That is a long way from a categorical statement that Democrats are mass murderers. And one more point that isn't being pushed by the media and is something that neither political party really wants to point out. The process of in vitro fertilization (IVF) generally involves the process of fertilizing multiple eggs in the dish. In practice, the result is that some fertilized eggs are simply stored in the lab, and are never implanted. In traditional anti-abortion rhetoric, this is equivalent to killing a potential human being, because the anti-abortionists have adopted the position that life begins at conception, which they generally define as fertilization. Trump and many of his political allies have realized that treating all fertilized eggs as fully deserving human beings is a political non-starter since IVF is generally popular, and many couples of voting age wish to use it. It is a quandary at best for the anti-abortion side, but one which seems to have already gotten beyond the bounds of political debate.
(Bob Gelfand writes on science, culture, and politics for CityWatch. He can be reached at [email protected])
