Walz blows opportunity to eviscerate Trump and Vance

Vice-Presidential Debate

BACKGROUND

See,

1)James Rowles, “The secret brilliance of Trump's Republican propaganda and how to counter it: "Illegal Haitian immigrants stealing pet dogs and cats and eating them in Springfield, Ohio’,Trenchant Observations, September 21, 2024;

2)James Rowles, “SATIRE: Haitian Dogs Are Eating White People in Springfield, Ohio,” Trenchant Observations, September 24, 2024.

Tim Walz's “performance" in the vice-presidential debate tonight (October 1, 2024) revealed how little Democratic advisers understand about what is going on at the subconscious level among voters who may ultimately vote for Trump and the authoritarian movement he leads.

It was a very polite, demure affaire. Walz and the Democrats who prepared him made a number of glaring mistakes.

Walz's handlers did not prepare him well for the debate.

First, Walz allowed Vance to present the facade of a reasonable politician genuinely interested in solving the problems of the people and the country. Count that as a win for Vance and, more importantly, for Donald Trump and the fascist Republican Party he now so completely dominates.

Second, the most glaring defect in his performance was his extremely serious demeanor on the split screen when Vance was speaking. He should have been prepped to display a relaxed demeanor, as fortunately Kamala Harris learned to do and did so well in her debate with Donald Trump.

With all that we've learned about political debates on television since the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960, when Kennedy won on appearance and demeanor among those watching the debate, while Nixon won among radio listeners following the substance of the arguments, the fact that Walz was not prepped to display an appropriate demeanor when Vance was speaking was, quite frankly, shocking.

Third, Walz didn't seem to understand that his opponent in the debate was not J.D. Vance but Donald Trump, and that Vance was only useful as a target exemplifying the worst characteristics of Trump. Walz was not there to win a popularity contest with Vance, but rather to take on Trump and only secondarily his unprincipled disciple, J.D. Vance.

Trump has said and done so many outrageous and unforgivable things--not only in this campaign but also in the 2016 campaign, during his presidency, and since he left office in 2021--that Walz was working in an extremely target-rich environment.

Vance for his part, has engaged in despicable lies and immigrant-bashing, such as his lie that illegal Haitian immigrants were stealing pet dogs and cats in Springfield, Ohio, and eating them. Both Trump and Vance have doubled down and continued to repeat these inexcusable, hate-filled lies.

Notably, Walz did not even mention the substance of the lies. Walz did not even mention that Trump and Vance had falsely accused Haitian immigrants who were lawfully in the United States of being illegal aliens, and such evil people that they stole <em>and ate</em> their neighbors' pet cats and dogs. Nor did he mention the violent atmosphere and threats that Trump's violent rhetoric about the Haitians had produced.

Instead, he assumed that most people recalled and understood the substance and context of the events he was describing, Maybe he was simply assuming that voters throughout the country are like Minnesota voters.

They aren’t.

Third, Walz was way too civil and respectful of Vance. He didn't need to have resorted to Trump-like rhetoric to press his points. He might have done so in the politest of tones, all the while figuratively driving the dagger into his opponent, and thereby Trump.

Walz might have driven his figurative spear into Trump and Vance on their repeated denials that Trump had lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden.He might have kept repeating the attack.

Fourth, Walz failed to parry Vance's attacks on Harris for being responsible for what Vance viewed as her grievous policy failures, by simply pointing out that she was not and had not been the President, and that as Vice-President her job had been to carry out the President's policies.

“Isn't that exactly what you would do if you became Vice-President?” he might have asked.

Walz might have driven this point home by stressing the fact that it would be Vance's job to execute Trump's policies, however much he might personally disagree with them. This would have opened the way for strong and repeated attacks on some of Trump's most egregious policy ideas and positions.

That would mean, would it not, that Vance would have to implement Trump's pro-Russian policies, which might include cutting off aid to Ukraine and / or pressuring Ukraine to enter a negotiated settlement with Russia which amounted to defeat.

Defeat. Negotiation of a deal that involved abandonment of the most basic principles of the United Nations Charter and international law, such as the prohibition against the use of force across international frontiers and the prohibition against the acquisition of territory through military conquest. And the enforcement of the laws of war by punishing those responsible for the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and even genocide.

In short, Walz did not understand the opportunity to treat the debate as if his real opponent were Donald Trump. He failed to call out both Trump and Vance for their outrageous actions and policies. He failed to attack Trump and Vance for their constant spewing, as from a firehose, of small and monstrous lies.

Walz didn't seem to know where he was or why he was there. He got suckered into a demure, rational policy debate.

It was a great lost opportunity.

In the end, however, Walz's performance probably didn't hurt the Harris campaign, as the debate was pretty much a draw. Those voters who were able to follow the arguments, except perhaps for some wealthy businessmen, were probably already going to vote for Harris.

The debate did reveal two things, however.

First, that the Democrats are clueless as to how to conduct a campaign aimed at the emotions of probably the majority of voters whose vote will be decided by subconscious factors that have little to do with the fine rational distinctions made in the debate tonight.

Second, that should Trump win in November, an incumbent Vice-President Vance would be a formidable opponent in the 2028 presidential election. Utterly unprincipled, nimble, and smart, with a barroom-brawler character to match tbat of Trump, Vance would be a hard man to beat.

James Rowles is a former Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School and professor of international law at other universities. He is the author of The Rape of American Democracy: Republican Actions and Democratic Failures, 2016-2021 (September, 2024, now available on Amazon and soon to be available from IngramSpark).

***

Support the Author

We encourage you to join the community that supports the Trenchant Observations newsletter.

You may sign up for a free subscription. But to receive all of the content as soon as it is published and to support the newsletter, please upgrade to a Paid or Founding Member subscription. To do so, click on the “Subscribe now” button below.

Alternatively, you may make a contribution to the author’s Go Fund Me appeal by clicking on the last button below. Go Fund Me does not take 10% as Substack does.