Lord of the Flies: 5 VP Debate Takeaways
Kamala Harris & Mike Pence return to an era of civilized yet still not substantive debate.
A debate where a literal fly may have gotten the most attention of anyone onstage is probably not worth spilling a ton of ink over. That said, here’s 5 things worth noting after this latest round of fillibluster.
Kamala makes a strong impression.
Kamala was sharp, well spoken and competent. In an election where people are openly speculating about the presidential nominees dying, that’s probably the most important thing: is this someone you can trust being in charge? Overall, I think that was the most important thing she could do and blunts the “you’ll be getting Kamala if you vote for Biden” attack. She also reliably hyped Biden and skewered Trump where she needed to, which were certainly objectives #2 and #3.
Pence sanitizes Trump.
Pence is good at his job, or at least his former one—as a political talk-radio host who spun bad arguments into folksy common sense (including classics like “Smoking doesn’t kill” and “Mulan is feminist propaganda”). When it comes to carrying water for Trump’s delusional incompetence he has his work cut out for him. But he is able to package even the worst elements of it—the disastrous pandemic response, racial provocations, conspiracy theories—in a calm suburban demeanor for the rotary club set. Even Pence’s serial interruptions and disregard for debate rules (where’s law and order when you need it?) probably won’t generate the headlines of Trump’s simply he didn’t shout them.
Do we really want debates like this?
This debate was more civilized than the shitshow of the first Presidential debate. But it wasn’t too much more informative, as the candidates ducked significant questions (Kamala on mask mandates and lockdowns, Pence on outlawing abortion or peacefully transferring power) and argued over basic facts in ways that were impossible for the viewers at home to fact-check in real time. The truth is that debate isn’t a very useful format for finding out new information, because you don’t know whose information to trust, the skill of the debater is more important than their accuracy, and competent participants refuse to admit anything that might hurt them. A moderator who pushes participants to answer can help, but among constant accusations of bias, they’re not always likely to.
Kamala moves to the center…
Like Biden before her, Kamala continued to court swing voters. After repeating that she would not ban fracking, she got some flack online for this, but it’s worth noting that it isn’t a bad idea. A carbon tax (which Biden proposes) is a better solution than a fracking ban for lowering emissions, since banning fracking can just move it overseas while reducing US tax revenue and jobs. That said, in a debate where she repeatedly emphasized they weren’t going to raise taxes on anyone making under 400k a year, Kamala wasn’t eager to bring up carbon taxes. The question is whether they will have the courage to if they’re in office.
…while Pence moves away from it?
While Pence’s demeanor may have suggested a more centrist alignment, many of his positions didn’t reflect it. He responded to a question about peacefully transferring power by veering into conspiracy theories about Hillary spying on Trump and liberals plotting mail-in voter fraud. While few people expect VP debates to move the needle, it’s interesting (if not scary) to see them not trying hard to do it when they are down by 9 points - and instead laying the groundwork for throwing away Democratic mail-in votes even as they continue to solicit them from their own voters.
Oh, and one more thing—
Why was anyone there? After the first debate may have given people a virus that is infecting politicians at an alarming rate, why don’t we make like half the country is doing and do this via videoconference? Has literally any explanation been given for why that completely obvious and widely endorsed idea hasn’t been adopted? If it was good enough for two conventions, one would think they could agree on it. Maybe they can follow their answers from the once-per-date softball question and actually resolve to work together to set a better example for the country. Anyone listening?