OPINION: The Vance-Walz debate makes it clear why we should listen to the experts

Photo credit: TNP Staff

Jayson Smith, a Freshman studying Political Science, argues that the Vice Presidential debate was a positive step for American politics regardless of affiliation.

The first – and only – vice presidential debate between Ohio Senator JD Vance and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz was a breath of fresh air compared to debates in recent history. From the initial presidential debate on June 27 with President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, and the latest debate between Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris – the cordiality and shared sense of respect between both vice presidential candidates in this relatively civil debate was, to say the least, surprising.

Whether the reasoning for this unanticipated behavior was an attempt by Vance to not stoke the fire and cause even more damage to the campaign that resulted from Trump’s performance in the Sept. 10 debate is unknown. Regardless, it was refreshing to see two political candidates being able to find common ground on multiple instances. In contemporary politics, it is rare to hear two opposing candidates say “I agree,” let alone express sympathy for one another.

The veil of respect between the two candidates proved to be inefficient when it came to covering up the lies that Vance vocalized during the debate. Vance echoed Trump’s repeated and baseless claims of anti-immigration rhetoric, employed a number of tactics to attack and discredit Kamala Harris’ record as Vice President (which has been a common practice on the campaign trail as well,) and conveniently changed stances on major issues like abortion.

Most notable is Vance’s switch-up concerning a national ban on abortion. Vance is quoted saying he “never supported a national abortion ban,” which he has repeatedly stated the direct opposite of. With states like Ohio exemplifying in recent elections that there is a massive body of voters who support women’s reproductive rights, Republicans have since adopted a confusing stance on the idea of a national abortion ban.

Anti-immigrant rhetoric has found a notable place in this year’s election cycle, specifically with Trump repeating claims that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were “eating the pets.” Vance, who is in support of Trump’s widespread mass deportation plan, placed the blame for high housing prices in Springfield on immigrants who he deemed illegal despite their having Temporary Protective Status (TPS), which allows them to legally reside and work in the U.S. for a certain period of time.

This exact type of rhetoric spread by Trump and Vance has led to unrest in the immigrant community in Springfield. Residents have had to live in constant fear as a result of numerous bomb threats and marches from hate groups, such as the Proud Boys and Ku Klux Klan.

While Walz had a tougher time finding his footing at first, that is not to say he performed poorly. After Vance refused to acknowledge Trump’s loss in the 2020 Presidential Election, he was asked by Walz if Trump had in fact lost, but Vance did not respond. Walz replied with the now iconic line: “That is a damning non-answer.” 

Adding on, Walz had an interesting take on why it is important to trust the experts. “Look, if you’re going to be president, you don’t have all the answers. Donald Trump believes he does. My pro tip of the day is this: if you need heart surgery, listen to the people at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, not Donald Trump.”

He’s right. When Trump’s economic plan is being attacked by economists with PhDs, it is necessary to listen to the experts. 

Even more so, when it comes to providing basic rights, such as access to healthcare, affordable housing and guaranteeing the basic necessity of safety to immigrants, we should again trust the experts.

When it comes to Trump, the expert we can trust is his own running mate. In Vance’s own words – and echoed by Walz at the end of the debate: “Donald Trump makes the people I care about feel afraid.” 

The stakes in this November’s election have never been higher, and with the choice between a proven leader and convicted felon – the choice is clear that we have to trust the expert. As Walz put it, “America, I think you’ve got a really clear choice of who’s gonna honor that democracy and who’s gonna honor Donald Trump.”

Please note that these views and opinions do not reflect those of The New Political.