Concessionary and Catholic-ish: Vance and even Walz gave US voters plenty to ponder
JD Vance gave an accomplished performance at last night’s debate, with even Democrat politican Pete Buttigieg describing it as “polished”. Farah Stockman of the New York Times managed to stretch to, “Vance did an excellent job of impersonating a decent man”. Having experienced a media onslaught like perhaps no vice-presidential candidate before, Vance faced the challenge of The post Concessionary and Catholic-ish: Vance and even Walz gave US voters plenty to ponder appeared first on Catholic Herald.
Syndicated News 
JD Vance gave an accomplished performance at last night’s debate, with even Democrat politican Pete Buttigieg describing it as “polished”. Farah Stockman of the New York Times managed to stretch to, “Vance did an excellent job of impersonating a decent man”.
Having experienced a media onslaught like perhaps no vice-presidential candidate before, Vance faced the challenge of shaking off the label of “weird” to overcome the appeal of Tim Walz, the popular “Minnesota dad”.
Ultimately, Vance has been judged to have triumphed by most commentators, though it appeared closer among the public: a CBS/YouGov flash poll of 1,630 viewers who watched the debate revealed a close contest, with 42 per cent believing Vance won and 41 per cent supporting Walz as the victor.
For Catholics, it was a heartening performance from Vance, who is a Catholic convert – to a point: he acted like a principled Catholic until two crucial moments; more of that later.
Walz doesn’t discuss religion much publicly, though he describes himself as a “Minnesota Lutheran” and became a Lutheran after he got married in 1994. Before that, though, he grew up as Catholic, notes the National Catholic Register.
During the debate, Walz’s attempts to project a wholesome image, in stark contrast to his previous, if limited, public exposure, came across as irrelevant. For example, during discussions about housing, he reflected, “I’m thinking of Christmas services after midnight Mass, where you go with your family”.
On his changing stance regarding assault weapons, he reminisced, “I could pheasant hunt after football practice”. Even when addressing Donald Trump’s refusal to accept defeat in the last election, he stated, “I worked with kids long enough to know, and I said, as a coach, sometimes you really want to win…”
One of the most bizarre moments of the debate occurred when the moderators asked Walz why he claimed to be in Hong Kong during the deadly Tiananmen Square protests, despite reports indicating otherwise. His response began with, “I grew up in a small, rural Nebraska town of 400. A town that you rode your bike with your buddies till the streetlights come on, and I’m proud of that service…”, before giving a sort of emotional curriculum vitae, which included describing himself as a “knucklehead”.
At other points, Walz came across as flustered and made Biden-like gaffes, confusing Iran and Israel and saying, “I’ve become friends with school shooters”.
Regarding his running mate for the election, he often seemed to be making excuses for Harris’s failings, attributing them to circumstances out of her control. Trump’s political interference and the pandemic were primarily to blame.
Conversely, Vance’s presentation of his boss’s economic record and plans was compelling and cogent, effectively reframing the rougher aspects of Trumpism as viable solutions to Americans’ financial woes.
His strongest moment came when he criticised the reliance on experts who, for decades, advocated outsourcing American manufacturing to China and Mexico, which weakened the middle class and made the US less self-reliant. This even prompted Walz to concede: “Much of what the senator said right there, I’m in agreement with.”
Vance also introduced his personal life with greater ease than Walz, placing his family front and centre alongside his troubled background, and frequently mentioning his “three beautiful little kids”. A human touch which enhanced his relatability.
However, Vance stumbled on a crucial issue that could define his political future: the outcome of the 2020 election. When Walz directly asked, “Did he [Trump] lose the 2020 election?” Vance offered a nonsensical diversion regarding whether Harris had suppressed free speech during Covid. Walz labelled it a “damning non-answer”, a moment that could haunt Vance for years to come.
He also prevaricated on the issue of abortion, failing to deliver the staunch pro-life stance many Catholics would have expected. Instead, he leaned into Donald Trump’s State-based approach, which would allow for wide discrepancies in abortion laws from one state to another, effectively softening the pro-life rhetoric.
For those committed to the sanctity of life from conception, this shift may feel like a contradiction to Vance’s earlier, more uncompromising advocacy for life. Many would have hoped for a firmer commitment to protecting the unborn on a national scale, rather than conceding to political pragmatism.
He let Walz take the lead for much of this issue and didn’t challenge the more extreme elements of Democratic policy, such as late-term abortions and the lack of clear policy on babies who survive them.
However, he did effectively challenge Walz on signing legislation that replaced a Minnesota law from 1976, which changed the requirement from “preserving the life and health of the born-alive infant” to simply “caring for the infant who is born alive”. Many argue this change removes the obligation for doctors to attempt to save babies born alive after an abortion. While Walz denied the point, it was an effective challenge from Vance that highlighted the extreme anti-life tendencies of some parts of the Democratic party.
Walz certainly had a better second half. And he certainly did better than the debate moderators, who gave the worst performances of the night, and seemed as though they were AI creations that had been programmed with a slight but perceivable bias mode in favour of Walz.
Ultimately, however, Vance was better prepared, more composed and delivered his points with clarity and confidence, appealing to a broader audience than previously with his polished, measured approach.
While Walz struggled to maintain focus and often seemed out of sync with the gravity of the moment, both candidates appeared amenable and polite, acknowledging their agreement on eight occasions (five times by Vance and three times by Walz). One of the most heart-warming moments occurred during the gun control discussion when Vance responded to Walz’s comment about his son witnessing a shooting by expressing genuine empathy, uttering “Christ, have mercy”.
The debate managed to focus on and articulate much more of their plans for office than anything we have seen and heard from either of the presidential candidates. Vance and Walz sparred on policy rather than on personality, while throughout neither seemed pugnacious.
The Harris campaign has presented itself as a break from the toxic politics of the past decade, while not actually doing anything differently, yet in many ways, this debate served to be the change they profess to be offering.
The impact of this debate is likely to be minimal, and the decision on who will be the next president will almost certainly hinge on a few hundred thousand votes in battleground states.
However, many Americans who tuned in may have been left thinking: Wouldn’t it be preferable if these candidates were our choices for the presidency?
Photo: Democratic vice presidential candidate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and his wife Gwen Walz (right) speak with Republican vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) and his wife Usha Vance after the debate at the CBS Broadcast Centre in New York City, USA, 1 October 2024. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.)
The post Concessionary and Catholic-ish: Vance and even Walz gave US voters plenty to ponder appeared first on Catholic Herald.
