By Lance Simmens
The contemporary society in which we live is poisoned with political contempt that makes it nearly impossible to restore decorum and civility that allows for differing thoughts on key important issues that by all rights should embody and foster actual debate. Unfortunately, the vigor with which attacks are personalized in what can only be characterizedas vitriolic and accusatory terms demeans even the most innocent attempts at carrying on any discussion that even remotely qualifies as educational and scholarly.
Recently, the vice presidential debate between each parties’ representatives to occupy the no. 2 position in power in our democracy actually was an attempt to seriously lower the temperature that has seriously infected the upcoming presidential election. It is inevitable that when one character not only insists that any outcome that chooses his opponent over him will be vitiated and not compliant with one of the most treasured notions that are spelled out by the Constitution and endorsed by the founding fathers — namely, a peaceful transfer of power — it is only obvious that democratic rule will be treading on shaky ground.
Political arguments based on differences of opinion and solid programmatic challenges can and should form the fundamental basis for healthy debate. Refusal of such so that any differences that are at the basis for argumentation, but at odds with one side of the debating equation, are surely designed to squelch an even playing field and destroy the notion that the electorate as well as the candidates themselves are duty-bound to offer programs and policies that should be chosen by those who cast their votes for such platforms.
To those of us involved in following the current election and have been numbed by the fractious claims and hostile recriminations that have been leveled by the Republican candidate and carried over from his loss four years ago because it simply does not comport with the claim that despite the loss of in excess of 60 court offerings, the election was not rigged and therefore invalidated. Who in their right mind can expect to get away with the position that they are willing to accept victory and hell-bent on denying defeat. This mantra —or, better labeled, absurdity — has been cultivated and sought for attention since the 2020 election, and there is absolutely no evidence that it holds anything other than sore-loser, temper-tantrum foolishness.
Hence there was a considerable degree of tension and wariness as the vice presidential debate neared, with the belief that there would be a waste of he said/he said silliness that would result in senseless recriminations that would neither educate the electorate nor provide a thoughtful proposal upon which to base one’s decision when they step into the ballot box. I must admit I was personally resigned to the prospect that it would more likely be a shouting match than a thoughtful enlightenment of the personalities vying for the second most important job in the world.
Despite a rough opening, the debate proceeded to settle down into a relatively solid degree of back-and-forth to which one who has not decided might at least know more about the candidates than they thought. And while I was not persuaded to change my views on the two candidates, what brought a relatively crooked smile to my face was the factthat the cherished decorum and lack of pointless accusations that has permeated the presidential race were not nearly as obvious and annoying as I had expected.
Of course, nothing is perfect — there were some tense moments and policy/program differences. In a recent commentary authored by William A. Galston and Elaine Kamark for Brookings, they adequately summed up the debate as follows:
“Vance excelled on immigration, the economy, and foreign policy and he managed to sound reasonable on abortion, taking the edge off one of his ticket’s key weaknesses. Walz was strong on gun safety, housing, and health care. He may have had his strongest moments at the end of the debate when the discussion turned to January 6 and preserving democracy. Whatever his private views may be, Vance would not admit that Joe Biden won the 2020 election, which attracted lots of post-debate attention and may have dented the armor of reasonableness and common sense that he wore to the debate.”
While no major points of help stand out, the point that I personally believe is most important: that childishness over who won and who lost was not at issue. There was a certain degree of demeanor and decorum that made at least for the moment a more mature and serious examination of the importance that policy positions and programmatic stances have in helping to deal with the issues and crises that the candidates may face one day. The need to take this election seriously is dead serious.