The vice-presidential debate on Tuesday night startled the most jaded political observer.
In a political environment of harshness and rancor, the two vice-presidential candidates acquitted themselves well, a credit to themselves, their campaigns and their principals.
I write not of the substance of their arguments, but of the manner in which the arguments were delivered.
From beginning to end, these men were civil and polite, yet firm in their positions. On occasion they announced their agreement with points their opponent had made, though not conceding the underlying argument of the opposition.
There was a clear winner and loser in this debate but the purpose of this column is not to comment on the political points made and rebutted. Nor is the purpose of this writing to “fact check” the assertions made by the candidates.
The moderators made a feeble attempt at fact checking in violation of the announced rules of the debate.
Although much could be said about the moderators, their selection of topics and their unfamiliarity with the facts they were not supposed to be checking, analyzing the moderators’ performance is not my purpose either. The purpose of this column is to describe and comment on the civility of the debate participants.
I would like to think that the participants both brought to the debate the small-town values with which they grew up; Middletown, Ohio (2000 population 51,600) in the case of Vance, and West Point, Nebraska (1980 population 667) in the case of Walz.
So, what is it about small towns and small cities that make those who grow up in them reluctant to toss insults back and forth over belief systems and political matters and to disapprove of those who do? I think it is the smallness. It’s not that arguments don’t occur in small towns, but the smaller the community, the less likely it is that argumentation will be marred by poor manners. The reason this is so is simple.
Shared experiences are the lubricant of friendships. The smaller the community, the more likely it is that you will share experiences with the same people on multiple occasions. It is much more difficult to be rude or insulting sitting next to a person at Rotary, in church, or at a high school basketball game. Those are shared experiences out of which grows familiarity and familiarity, in my opinion, is just as likely to breed respect as it is contempt.
As political competitors, Walz and Vance shared an experience at the debate. As the debate wore on it was obvious these two were looking for areas of agreement as well as commenting on the disagreement inherent in their candidacies and the political parties each represented. Their respect for each other was patently obvious and grew as the debate progressed. They did not find it necessary to yell at each other in order to be heard.
By the debate’s end, the two candidates were shaking hands in the center of the stage, patting each other on the back and lingering to exchange pleasantries. And yet, during the post- debate commentary, I did not hear any objection to those gestures by observers, media or even the partisans in attendance. For the most part, it was as if the calmness and respect displayed by the debaters were contagious.
As I remember it, Vance came to the “Spin Room” to be interviewed by Shawn Hannity after the debate. Shawn criticized Walz’ performance and described it as being “nervous”. Vance defended his debate competitor by saying that being nervous was quite understandable because he was nervous as well.
It was all quite refreshing and enjoyable and you had the sense the participants enjoyed it as well. The conduct of these competitors was not, however, unusual.
Anyone who has participated in team sports knows well the feeling that Walz and Vance had at the conclusion of the debate when they met and exchanged pleasantries at center stage.
When the Cowboys beat Air Force last Saturday, I watched the players mingle and congratulate each other after the game had concluded. The time for beating hell out of each other was over.
When the game was over the coaches also met at midfield. Calhoun and Sawvel shook hands and exchanged words before departing to their respective locker rooms. I have often wondered what is said at those mid-field meetings but I think it’s safe to say they are usually friendly. For players and coaches alike … a shared experience of competition breeding mostly respect.
Another example of this post competition phenomena is in the courtroom. Some of the most enduring friendships I have today, were made with adversaries in the course of arduous, hotly contested and emotional trials, sometimes over public policy matters, sometimes over significant sums of money and sometimes even over matters of life and death.
Leading up to and during the legal proceedings, the contesting attorneys were trying to win for their clients. After the trial was over and the jury had returned its verdict and we had (hopefully) gotten to know, trust and respect each other, it was hard not to be friendly ... a shared experience of competition, breeding mostly respect.
During and after the vice presidential debate, the candidates were affable, magnanimous and self-effacing though firm in resolve of their respective policy positions.
It is possible to disagree, even disagree vehemently, and in the process be respectful and courteous. J.D. Vance and Tim Walz proved that at the vice presidential debate.
Politics is a competition and the competitors share the experience. The approbation with which these competitors were received after their display of civility and good manners, is a lesson to be learned for those who see to favorably impress onlookers who may also be voters.
TAG: Ray Hunkins is retired from the livestock business and after a 50-year career as a trial attorney now writes occasional opinion pieces.
