The recent Waltz-Vance vice-presidential debate was a masterclass in political theater, full of surface-level civility but utterly devoid of substance. For anyone expecting a serious engagement with the real issues confronting this country, it was a monumental disappointment. Neither candidate seemed capable of rising to the moment, leaving us with a muddled and lackluster exchange that underscored just how detached the political elite has become from the real-world struggles of ordinary Americans.
Waltz, with his incessant references to Minnesota, seemed more like a provincial governor than a national leader. His repeated praise for his home state might have played well with voters in Minneapolis, but to those in places like South Carolina, it must have come across as tone-deaf. The notion that the rest of the country should somehow aspire to be like Minnesota reveals a staggering naivety about the profound regional differences in this country. Waltz’s progressive leanings were clear, but his message was wrapped in a form of Midwestern exceptionalism that simply won’t fly in large swaths of the nation.
On the other hand, Vance was a case study n the slick, calculating lawyer-politician—claiming to represent the interests of the middle class while being the embodiment of elite privilege. He’s a lawyer, a venture capitalist, and a pastor of the One Percent, all rolled into one. His rhetoric might appeal to those who can’t see past his polished delivery, but anyone paying attention knows that what he’s really selling is a far-right agenda that’s straight out of the Heritage Foundation’s playbook. The average viewer might not catch this, but Vance’s agenda is as radical as they come—dangerously so. Not mentioned by anyone on the stage was that he was closely alighned with the tenets of Project 2025—the radical right agenda if Trump wins. Both Trump and Vance deny having anything to do with Project 2025. But, this is a lie. We know who they listen and who holds the purse strings.
What’s most alarming, though, is how little either candidate seemed to understand the complexity of the issues they were debating. They treated everything—Ukraine, Gaza, healthcare, abortion—as if it could be boiled down to simple binaries, when in reality, these are some of the most intricate and difficult challenges of our time. Waltz, for all his nods to experts, didn’t seem to grasp who those experts are or what their research entails. Vance, meanwhile, took the tried-and-true path of the populist right, dismissing expertise altogether, even though he is part of the elite establishment himself.
Here’s the thing: the real tragedy of debates like this isn’t just the lack of policy nuance; it’s that both sides are woefully underprepared for the gravity of the moment. The research backing these candidates is laughable, with teams of young, inexperienced aides glued to their phones while they should be doing the hard work of uncovering facts. It’s no wonder that Waltz and Vance both seemed lost in the weeds when it came to policy.
And that’s where the heart of the problem lies. These issues—whether it’s the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the future of U.S. healthcare, or the real cost of abortion restrictions—are not black and white. They are gray, messy, and difficult. Yet, the candidates acted as though simple slogans and one-liners would suffice. They don’t. This is a sign of a deeper rot in our political system, where both the far-right and the moderate left are increasingly detached from the very real, lived experiences of working people.
Waltz tried to invoke the January 6th insurrection, and for a moment, it seemed like he might land a blow on Vance’s thinly veiled authoritarianism. But Vance, true to form, dodged the issue, pivoting to immigration in a clumsy attempt to rile up his base. This, of course, is the standard playbook for politicians today—divert attention away from real threats to democracy by waving the flag of nativism and fear. Meanwhile, Trump’s refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election—a foundational issue for the survival of our democracy—remains largely unaddressed by Vance. No surprise there.
In the end, neither candidate did much to clarify their positions or give voters a deeper understanding of what’s at stake. Waltz, as a progressive, should have gone after Vance harder, especially on issues of democracy, but he failed to land any serious punches. It was, as so many political debates are these days, a game of evasion and misdirection, with both candidates hoping that voters wouldn’t notice the glaring omissions in their arguments.
But00 voters aren’t stupid. They may not have heard what they wanted to hear in this debate, but more likely, they heard exactly what these candidates wanted them to hear: empty rhetoric, vague promises, and a refusal to grapple with the real issues. Waltz and Vance gave us a masterclass in political posturing, but what they didn’t give us was any real vision for how to move this country forward. Instead, we’re left with the same old story—the blind leading the blind, with no real answers in sight.
Comments
Post a Comment