🇺🇸 Vance Has the Temperament That Trump Lacks

The debate provided an idea of what American politics could become in a post-Trump era.

This post was originally published in Swedish here.

NEW YORK. The CBS hosts seemed to have either missed or ignored the post-debate criticism directed at their moderator colleagues at ABC.

The start of the VP debate resembled a parody of participant favoritism. Tim Walz got soft, open-ended questions (except for the one regarding his misleading account of his time in Hong Kong), while JD Vance faced tough, pointed ones.

That far, the debate between the vice-presidential candidates echoed the one between Harris and Trump. Yet, this debate was something entirely different to watch.

Vance, in fact, succeeded where Trump failed. He kept his composure and refused to be rattled. Instead of scandalizing his opponents, he pointed out their shortcomings, explained the connections between the policies implemented and their outcomes, and painted a vision of a once-again prosperous America.

Vance drew a distinction between a potential Trump or Harris administration, yet he was quick to declare every time he agreed with his opponent.

An unusual sight on American television.

Vance and Walz agreed on child care, and had some similar views on gun violence and abortion. Vance tried to give the MAGA Republican party a friendlier face. Talked about what it feels like to send your child to school, knowing that a tragedy could, statistically, occur. He called for bipartisan work to increase school safety, without infringing on the Second Amendment. He mentioned a childhood friend who became pregnant and claimed her abortion saved her life. Explained that you can respect women’s decisions while wanting to protect life.

This was a more reasonable rhetoric than Trump's "execution at birth" references. Even though Vance, fully aware that everything he says is fact-checked, mentioned the law underlying Trump’s claim, he did not dwell on such eye-catching anecdotes. He preferred to talk about things that many recognize and relate to.

Most importantly, Vance acknowledged his and his party’s weaknesses. Regarding abortion, he said “we’ve got to do so much better of a job at earning the American people’s trust back on this issue where they, frankly, just don’t trust us”. 

A type of leadership rare among Trump, Harris, and Walz alike.

Instead there is, especially from the left, an unwillingness to acknowledge what voters experience every day. As Vance put it, Harris changes paths without admitting her previous ones were wrong. Only a weak leader, according to the challenger, acts in this way.

The debate gave an idea of what American politics could become in a post-Trump era. An arena where discussing issues outweighs focusing on personality. Where the news media becomes more concerned with what is said than explaining how viewers should think and vote.

Vance has the temperament that Trump lacks. This helps not only him but the movement he represents. Only when the caricatures of it disappear can its voices be truly heard.

Unlike the previous, this debate was clarifying.

It became clear what’s at stake and why democracy appears threatened—even from a Republican perspective. How free speech has been restricted over the past four years. How ordinary Americans have been censored when expressing their political (conservative) views. By tech companies—under pressure from authorities and the administration.

Vance broke the debate rules when he kept talking, but it was symptomatic that his microphone was cut off when he countered the hosts’ fact-checking on immigration (Walz’s microphone was cut off simultaneously). It was as if the moderators, and the news station that hires them, having their claims disputed. As if fact checking is a right reserved for the left. 

And it was as if CBS fell into its own trap during the debate. Since Vance kept calm, its tactics became visible.