Charles Lipson

Vance vs Walz was what a debate should look like

J.D. Vance and Tim Walz (Photo: Getty)

The most important takeaway from the vice-presidential debate between Senator J.D. Vance and Governor Tim Walz is that this is what a serious debate for high office should look like. It was calm but impassioned, thoughtful, and truly helpful to any voter who wants to understand the policy differences between the two tickets. The candidates actually listened to each other, acknowledged some agreements and identified genuine areas of difference. Equally important, each managed to put forward a coherent case for his own ticket, stressing the key issues in their respective campaigns.

Both the tone and substance of the debate was far superior to the two presidential debates. The Trump-Biden debate was the most consequential, of course, because it showed what the White House had hidden for months: the sitting president is saddled with serious cognitive problems. The public concluded he could not serve for another term and might not be fit to serve now.

Get Britain's best politics newsletters

Register to get The Spectator's insight and opinion straight to your inbox. You can then read two free articles each week.

Already a subscriber? Log in

Written by
Charles Lipson
Charles Lipson is the Peter B. Ritzma Professor of Political Science Emeritus at the University of Chicago, where he founded the programme on International Politics, Economics, and Security.

Topics in this article

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in