The vice presidential debate between Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) and Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) showed just how hungry voters are for a return to a modicum of civility between dueling politicians — a behavior long lost and sorely missed in national politics. While the debate performances of the two candidates was far from perfect, they were good enough to restore some hope for the future.
By comparison, last month’s presidential debate between Republican former President Donald Trump and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris was a debacle, and not just for Trump supporters who saw their candidate outmaneuvered on stage by Kamala Harris.
Rather, that debate, like many before it, was a debacle for far more important reasons. The real losers were common voters who did not witness what they hoped and deserved to see: a clear description of policy positions upon which to base their vote. To say the debate was a missed opportunity is an understatement given we are experiencing the most bizarre election in recent history — with so many lingering unknowns for undecided voters while people are now casting ballots.
There has been a systemic problem in national political debates where public-opinion points are awarded for the most “gotcha” moments. Candidates have been able to overtalk each other to the point where watching becomes unbearable. Although the overtalking has been curtailed by new debate rules, it is almost comical to think that a debate between two persons vying for the job of president of the most powerful country in the world includes a rule to mute their mics.
Candidates unabashedly distort facts and dodge direct questions. But voters see right through the smoke screens, and they are very frustrated. This is why the Vance-Walz debate got high marks. The candidates did less distorting and less dodging, and they were generally polite to each other.
I recall watching the debate between Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak and his Republican challenger Joe Lombardo in 2022. The Nevada Independent hosted the debate and CEO and Editor Jon Ralston moderated. It is worthwhile to go back and watch that debate again, which I recently did. Since the setting was local politics, of course it did not carry the fervor of a national event. But to use a common cliché, the stakes could not have been higher for Nevadans. Did voters want a continuation of the policies manifested under incumbent Sisolak or were they ready for a change in direction?
The reasons I appreciated the quality of that debate were simple. Tough and fair questions were leveled at both candidates — and both candidates answered the questions directly enough for voters to distinguish differences. There was some finger pointing, but those moments were few. And most importantly, there was no blatant lying.
Immediately after the first time I watched the debate I remember thinking “if only all debates could be like this.” I learned where each candidate stood on key issues and could base my opinion about who won on the content of their answers — not how composed they looked or how many zingers they squeezed in.
The candidates in that gubernatorial debate showed respect for the process. They followed the moderator’s lead, spoke when spoken to and, again, they answered the questions. They listened politely while the other talked. The debate was grounded in policy positions, not personalities. If the candidates despised each other, they did not show it. And not once did Sisolak or Lombardo preface a response to a question with “I come from a middle-class family.” (Note to all candidates whether running for national or local office: Please toss that utterly ridiculous opening line in answer to a question about the economy. Even if you have middle-class roots, you are not special — 98 percent of Americans identify as middle to lower class.)
The ’22 gubernatorial debate was a lesson in civics and civility for everyone, from middle school students to grown adults. All school speech and debate programs should watch the recent presidential and vice presidential debates, and the 2022 Nevada gubernatorial debate, and then critique the differences. They are that stark.
Change is always possible, and hopefully the vice presidential debate will mark the beginning of a trend. Like the Sisolak-Lombardo debate two years before it, that debate illustrates that marked disagreement and civility do not have to be an either-or proposition. And, facts matter. We, the people, deserve something far better than what we have been getting.
Michael Raponi is a contributing columnist for The Nevada Independent and may be contacted at [email protected].
The Nevada Independent welcomes informed, cogent rebuttals to opinion pieces such as this. Send them to [email protected].
