A nice and mostly meaningless affair

Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio handled himself ably on the vice presidential debate stage Tuesday night. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz was not as proficient in the skills of debate, but it does not matter. The fact that Dan Quayle was not John F. Kennedy did not stop George H.W. Bush from becoming president. Vance won the debate, and Democrats will insist it does not matter because of it. They will say it defensively, but they will be right. Voters are voting for Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, not J.D. Vance or Tim Walz, and both men on the stage Tuesday night understood that.

Three questions in, the CBS moderators went to climate change. Vance did a great job of focusing on energy production in the United States and the Biden-Harris administration increasing our dependence on China. Both Vance and Walz expressed platitudinal concerns about climate change. Moderator Norah O’Donnell felt the need to conclude the section by lecturing Americans that scientists think climate change is accelerating. The day before, CBS News’ Major Garrett lectured Americans that Hurricane Helene was a new type of hurricane—one that caused inland flooding, like so many prior hurricanes.

Therein lies the problem with these sorts of debates. We learn more about the biases, proclivities, and worldviews of a biased national press corps than we learn about the candidates. From climate to abortion to gun control, the questions were predictable. Vance, on a stage against two opponents and a Democrat, came across as a sharp and skilled debater. The other moderator, Margaret Brennan, who expressed concerns about Donald Trump’s rhetoric the day he was shot, thought it worth challenging Vance on whether Congress controlled the purse strings. She seemed not to be sure Vance would agree.

To their credit, the moderators did push on immigration, and Walz played defense, quoting Christ from Matthew 25 about taking care of the least of us. Then the moderators decided to fact-check Vance on the refugee programs for Haitians. They got their facts wrong and attempted to cut Vance’s microphone when he accurately sought to correct them. Throughout, the moderators insisted they had much to cover and not enough time.

Bizarrely, during a discussion on gun control, Walz said he had become friends with school shooters, a line that even left Democrats scratching their heads. He clearly did not mean what he said, and he got away with saying it. Vance attempted to steer the conversation to mental health, but Walz insisted that was distracting because “Sometimes it’s just the gun.”

For people of faith, Vance’s answers about abortion showed compassion but also an unwillingness to fight for a culture of life at the federal level. His policy positions on abortion, trade, and even Obamacare are not truly conservative. In fact, Vance and Walz often found themselves agreeing about the need for government intervention in American lives. This Republican ticket has no interest in restraining government and, Walz, a progressive governor, more than once said he agreed with Vance’s policy directions. In fact, Walz actually commented on his surprise by how much they agreed. On the abortion issue, he celebrated what he called “50 years of autonomy” before the reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022. Vance landed a hard punch when he said that Walz opposes virtually all restrictions on abortion. He also pressed on the fact that the pro-abortion legislation Walz signed in Minnesota endangers even babies born alive after an attempted abortion. Vance should have pressed harder because Walz represents a truly radical vision of abortion rights.

As a Christian who believes we are all sinners, I want as few in charge of me as possible. So I support limiting government. Instead, on the debate stage, Vance and Walz were not arguing over restraining government but arguing over how much more power the sinners in charge should have to control us. Both want expanded government powers, they just disagree on who should control the power.

On the positive side, Americans looking for more grown-up discourse should have been encouraged by both Vance and Walz. They often did agree and were not combative with each other. They were nice to each other and nice in their demeanor. They both expressed common concerns about American workers, families, outsourcing, costs of child care, and healthcare. They just disagreed, often amicably, about how the government should address those problems while agreeing government should expand to address the problems. That, however, gave Vance a constant advantage.

Throughout the debate, Vance pointed out that Kamala Harris is currently the vice president. He repeatedly reminded Americans that the Trump economy outperformed the Biden-Harris economy. He reminded Americans that President Joe Biden and Harris’ policies have driven up costs. Walz constantly had to deflect.

Walz was defensive about his time in China, opening new lines of attacks on his pattern of embellishment and lies in his biography. He likewise failed consistently to land a punch on Vance. Vance did his best to mitigate the issue of abortion, but he pulled his punches, which the Trump campaign probably wanted him to do. At the end, they chatted, as did their wives. The men gave us a civil debate packaged in niceness and shook hands. The moderators reminded Americans why they hate the press.

The debate will be forgotten. If Democrats lose, they will mutter under their breath, “Josh Shapiro.” If Republicans lose, perhaps they will remember that offering Democrat-lite policies is not a compelling alternative for many Americans.