Remember the vice presidential debate?
Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz faced off in a debate that was, at times, borderline civil — a welcome contrast to the hostility of the presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, in which Trump falsely claimed immigrants were eating pets and Democrats supported killing infants.
Vance went as far as to show respect for his opponent and the moderators — a far cry from the hostility and name-calling both Trump and Vance use on the campaign trail. This illustrated a theme from Vance throughout the debate where he appeared more reasonable than his ideas.
This civility, while encouraging for the future of political discourse, walked a thin line between refreshing and dangerous.
As a society, we need to find more common ground in politics and learn to work together, but we’re not there yet. Don’t let the political bromance of the VP debate shield you from what the GOP ticket would mean for the country.
Howard Lavine, a political psychology professor at the University of Minnesota, said Walz and Vance appeared to be two people who could agree with each other but didn’t like each other’s running mate. When discussing Vance’s performance, Lavine said Vance’s skills give him an advantage in debate.
“He is very capable of talking about things in a relatable way,” Lavine said. “He didn’t tell the truth about a lot of things. A lot of things that a lot of people won’t know are not true.”
Vance made irrational ideas sound rational to viewers who weren’t listening with a critical ear.
Emily Vraga, a mass communications and political psychology professor, said politicians who lie and spread misinformation in the U.S. do not suffer significant consequences and do not lose much appeal among voters.
“Polarization in the U.S. is really strong,” Vraga said. “That leads us to believe our side and disbelieve anyone who’s trying to say our side isn’t right.”
While Vance delivered some misinformation in a believable manner, we also saw the staple outlandish statements the Trump campaign is known for, including Vance’s assertions that Trump will bring back common sense and put the people first — both of which he does the opposite of whenever he walks into a room.
Vance also falsely asserted that Trump peacefully gave up power in 2020 and refused to acknowledge the results of the election when Walz asked him if Trump lost.
“Tim, I’m focused on the future,” Vance said.
If you take one thing into this election, let it be that Trump and Vance are dangerous for American democracy, no matter Trump’s outlandish statements or Vance’s mask of rationality.
Michael Edwards, co-communications director for the Undergraduate Political Science Association at the University, said Vance’s debate performance was different from what he’s seen from him in the campaign so far. Edwards said Trump’s age could be a significant factor in the difference between his and Vance’s debate performances.
When comparing Trump’s and Vance’s debate performances, both men reflected very different perspectives on the state of this country.
“We have the greatest country, the most beautiful country,” Vance said in his closing statement.
Compare this to Trump’s description of the U.S. in the presidential debate between him and Harris.
“We’re a failing nation,” Trump said twice during the debate. “We’re a nation that’s in serious decline.”
These two statements paint very different pictures of the GOP ticket — only one of whom is running for president. Vance could present himself as a respectful, optimistic patriot, but it doesn’t change the fact that Trump will take this fear-mongering negativity and use it as his basis to govern, should he be elected.
Lavine said while we can hope our political discourse will begin to reflect the respect and civility of the VP debate in the future, that is not likely to happen with Trump still engaged in politics. He added that Trump uses the status threat felt by many of his supporters to fuel division and fear of social and demographic changes.
“Trump is tapping into a significant level of resentment in the public,” Lavine said.
When discussing whether Vance’s performance could sway undecided voters, Vraga and Lavine both said voters who are still undecided are likely to be tuned out of politics and probably didn’t watch the VP debate at all.
Ashaar Ali, a second-year strategic communications student, said the VP debate seemed more composed and respectful than the presidential debate between Harris and Trump, but she doesn’t think this will change voters’ minds. Ali added the lack of fact-checking in the debate bothered her because misinformation is already such a significant issue.
Vraga said the partisan nature of fact-checking in this misinformation-filled environment makes it difficult to reach people with fact-checked information.
“Democrats spread fact-checks about Republicans and Republicans spread fact-checks about Democrats,” Vraga said. “If your side lies, and even if there is a fact check issued, the odds are you won’t see it, and if you see it, you’re likely to be very skeptical of it.”
Vraga said people should make an effort to seek out perspectives that challenge their own and that we as a society have the power to change systems that perpetuate misinformation.
As voting begins, the VP debate is probably the furthest thing from your mind. It gave us a glimpse into what politics post-Trump could be but also a reminder that the GOP ticket does not respect fair elections or a peaceful transfer of power.
The Harris-Walz campaign is the only rational party in this presidential election and the only one that will work to protect democracy. Trump and Vance lie about many issues, but they reflect their true colors when they refuse to accept the results of fair elections.