By Don Schmitz

It was refreshing to watch the vice presidential candidates debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz. The BBC reported that the debate “felt like a civil and relatively restrained conversation about the issues at the top of American voters’ minds going into the 5 November election.”

Agreed, and as you may have noted I am increasingly searching for reporting from foreign sources as the media in America has abandoned any impartiality being shills for the left or the right. The history of American televised debates began in 1960 between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy. Those who listened on the radio thought Nixon won, but those who watched the smooth and polished Kennedy on TV thought he carried the day. Kennedy won the electoral college handily, but the actual votes were razor thin — less than 112,000 votes, or 0.2 percent. Nixon supporters urged him to demand a recount, suspecting fraud in Illinois and Texas, whereupon he replied “our country cannot afford the agony of a constitutional crisis.” Those days seem gone, perhaps because both Democrats and Republicans believe the other party is destroying the country. The decline started in the 2000 election between Al Gore and George W. Bush. The concept of a respectful interchange was lost when Gore walked over and tried to intimidate Bush standing next to him glowering. Small potatoes by today’s standards sadly. Worse was the jarring challenge by Gore of the election, the recounts in Florida, studying “hanging chads,” and the Supreme Court ruling that the Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris’s vote certification would stand. Some Democrats tried to stop the Congressional certification, which they did again in Bush’s reelection, and Trump’s election in 2016. The wrenching tragedy of Jan. 6 for the certification of President Biden is the worst example of all.

Negative campaigning has been common forever in America. John Adams called Alexander Hamilton “the bastard brat of a Scotch peddler,” Republicans accused Franklin Delano Roosevelt of being a Communist, and more recently Democratic Rep. William Clay of Missouri charged that Ronald Reagan was “trying to replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf.” Criticizing President George W. Bush, billionaire Democratic contributor George Soros said, “(He displays the) supremacist ideology of Nazi Germany.” In a 2017 study, Oscar Winberg used the term “insult politics,” which are an “ad hominem attacks of a disparaging nature aimed at an individual or group.” This approach has been used to great effect by Biden, Pelosi, and Trump, whereas historically candidates would allow surrogates and media allies to do the gutter sniping.

Of course, none of this would transpire if it didn’t have a positive result for the candidates, which points the finger directly back to us as the voters and body politic. When Democrats call Republicans racists, xenophobic, homophobic misogynists, their base laps it up. Hillary Clinton called Trump supporters a “basket of deplorables” in 2016. When Republicans call Democrats socialists, racists, communists, and anarchists, their base applauds. Right now, I know many of you reading my column on both sides of the aisle are saying to yourselves, “Well, they are, and I can prove it”! OK, believe what you will, but don’t be shocked that our political leaders are using your rhetoric, they want your votes. However, Americans are growing weary of the vitriol. A 2019 Pew study found 85 percent say debate is more negative and less respectful, and only 76 percent believe it is fact based. 78 percent say heated rhetoric raises the risk of violence.

After an assassin barely missed killing Trump, Biden affirmed: “The political rhetoric in this country has gotten very heated. It’s time to cool it down.” Yet within days the labeling of Trump as a threat to democracy and a Nazi started right back up again, and a second assassin tried to kill him. Enough. Even if our deeply jaded views of each other are true, there is a better way.
I’ve never been impressed with those who utilize ad hominem attacks in a debate, which is supposed to be illustrative to the audience of the issues and positions. Yelling over each other and personal insults do nothing to accomplish much. We can stay true to our beliefs, and fight hard for them, without being crass. In 1984, Reagan was running for reelection against Walter Mondale, and at 73 Reagan’s age was an issue. When queried about age by the moderator, he replied; “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” Mic drop, as Mondale along with the audience laughed. Reagan won reelection by 49 states. It’s not hopeless: the Mitt Romney v. Barack Obama debates were the epitome of classy decorum and intellectual detail. Vance and Walz have shown us that we can return to those days, and we should.

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.