While both candidates were cordial, it is still important to not let performative politics cloud your judgment
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
On Oct. 1, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Ohio Senator JD Vance engaged in civil discourse and policy-driven conversation as they shared the stage during the vice presidential debate. The debate, hosted at the CBS Broadcast Center, covered topics such as immigration, housing, the economy, reproductive rights and much more. Many noted that this debate differed drastically from the ABC News Presidential Debate with Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Walz and Vance engaged in a somewhat-collegial affair, yet still disagreed on some of their counterparts’ policy positions.
While the debate appeared more professional — with candidates generally respecting their opponents and the rules set in place by moderators — the Editorial Board urges voters to recognize that the debates only give voters a glimpse into a candidate’s policy. Rather than focusing on political performances to support your decision, it is extremely important to look for sources that give voters detailed information on the actual policy positions of both the Harris and Trump campaigns.
We see so much performance in our everyday media, making it increasingly difficult to decipher whether the content we are receiving is genuinely informing us or making an emotional spectacle for viewers to latch onto. News outlets and social media work in tandem with public perception to frame the concept of the debates to clearly point to one “winner” — fueling polarization between candidates and parties alike over who “did better.”
Similarly, viewers pay close attention to which candidate is speaking in a concise and reasonable manner because of the standards set by past presidential debates. The first widely televised debate showcased presidential candidates, John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, engaged in civil exchanges with one another and focused on policy differences over personal attacks. This doesn’t go to say that there weren’t tension-filled moments, but the overall atmosphere was notably less combative than contemporary debates. Even in the first televised presidential debate, the character and appearance of the candidates still played a major role in voters’ decisions.
It is common to focus on how tone and mannerisms factor into the way a candidate is presenting their material, but public attention is often drawn to how candidates frame their arguments rather than the information within them. It’s understandable to feel relieved that Walz and Vance were respectful and empathetic toward one another, given the recent history of tense discussion by their running mates.
Modern U.S. democracy is inherently divisive. Voters cannot lose sight of the fact that two opposing parties are fighting to sway the American people toward their respective candidates. While we understand that seeing candidates speak respectfully to each other reminds us of a “simpler time,” it is important to understand the drastic differences between the two choices on the ballot.
Written by: The Editorial Board
