During the vice presidential debate on Oct. 1, I was shocked to find out that Gov. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) and Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) were receptive to my article criticizing the lack of policy in politics. Unlike September’s presidential debate, the vice presidential debate facilitated a compelling discussion between the two candidates on their tickets’ policy goals, including the economy, immigration, housing, foreign policy and healthcare. Walz and Vance were polite, acknowledged the other’s goodwill and kept personal attacks to a minimum. The debate was everything that I said American politics needed in my previous op-ed, but, funnily enough, seeing it play out made me realize that I was wrong.
Vance’s debate performance may have been smooth, but it was rooted in lies, revised versions of history and outright rejections of the truth. To a lesser extent, Walz also lied and exaggerated, demonstrating that simply bringing policy discussions back into politics is not enough to revive the American discourse. Candidates must do a better job of grounding policy conversations in truth and sincerity, and the media must hold them accountable. Voters must think critically about claims made by candidates and evaluate rhetoric for its accuracy and honesty.
During the debate, Vance argued with the moderators about being fact-checked on the issue of immigration, after he said that in Springfield, Ohio and other communities, services were overwhelmed by illegal immigrants. Additionally, Vance told lies and exaggerations about President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris’ administration’s record on energy, guns, immigration, climate change, foreign policy and inflation. Attacking the dominant political party's record on key issues is understandable, but it is unproductive and harmful to do it through falsehoods. While Walz attempted to set the record straight on the Biden-Harris administration's record on climate change and immigration, he alone cannot be responsible for calling out Vance’s lies. Media outlets must be responsible for drawing viewers’ attention to the truth, and voters must do their own research and think critically to delineate the truth from blatant lies.
Along with bashing the Biden-Harris administration, Vance also sought to rewrite the record of former President Donald Trump’s administration – a dangerous attempt to alleviate Trump of the consequences of his actions. He claimed that Trump could have destroyed the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but decided to salvage it instead. In reality, Trump and Republicans tried to eliminate the ACA in 2017 but failed to garner enough votes in the U.S. Senate. Additionally, Vance claimed that Trump peacefully transferred power to Biden on Jan. 20, 2021. While Trump may have ultimately transferred his power to Biden, he was both impeached and indicted for his role in the deadly Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Not only did Vance seek to revise the history of the Trump administration, but he also passed the blame for problems created by his running mate onto Harris. Vance pounced on Walz’s claim that the Iranian government is currently the closest it has ever been to obtaining a nuclear weapon, blaming Harris for Iran's nuclear proliferation. By doing so, he completely disregarded the fact that Trump pulled out of the Iran Nuclear Deal in 2018, which previously paused Iran’s nuclear development. In the face of Vance’s attempts to rewrite history, voters must either have sharp memories or the will to fact-check. Considering how the Trump administration’s actions continue to affect the nation today can help paint the picture of what a second Trump term would mean for the future of the United States.
However, policy is not the only thing that matters in an election. Voters must also take political candidates’ characters into account. Trump's tenure as president demonstrates how vastly a poor moral character can damage American allyships and America’s reputation. Vance may have been calm and cordial while laying out Trump’s policy visions on the debate stage, but a few hours later, he was back to using fiery and divisive rhetoric on the campaign trail. Vance may be a great actor, but that does not mean that he is a great person nor leader. Voters must recognize that the Vance in the debate was in stark contrast to his typical demeanor.
This is not to say that Walz was entirely truthful in the debate. He continued to recite lies about the severity of Project 2025, which the Trump campaign has distanced itself from. Walz struggled through a muddled response when moderator Margaret Brennan asked him about false claims that he was in Hong Kong during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. He admitted that he misspoke but repeated that he was in China during the democracy protests — though they had largely died down by the time he got there. Voters should also be aware of Harris’ flip-flopping in her positions on issues like fracking and immigration. Though voters should critically evaluate the claims made by candidates on both tickets, it is safe to say that during the vice presidential debate, Vance relied much more on lies than Walz did.
Voters should weigh a candidate's previous positions and actions as they make their decisions at the ballot box. Voters — especially those of us located in Georgia, an important swing state — need to conduct thorough research, combined with critical thinking, to evaluate candidates’ claims. The vice presidential debate was a breath of fresh air given its focus on policy, but, below the surface, it highlighted the dangers that lying and imposing revisionist history can pose to our nation's politics. By fighting against, and voting against, this misinformation, we can preserve our nation's truth, and thus, our democracy.
Pierce McDade (25Ox) is from Bloomington, Ill.
