Vance-Walz VP debate: Civility prevails, with clashes on immigration, abortion and the economy

Tim Walz and J. D. Vance became the first line of defense for the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates on Tuesday, in the only debate between the two and, foreseeably, the last opportunity for the campaigns to present their platforms — or to attack their rival’s proposals — before a national audience. Walz, who is the governor of Minnesota, was going into the debate with more political experience than Vance, but the face-to-face changed the tables: the young senator from Ohio sounded somewhat more convincing than the veteran Democratic governor, although it was not possible to clearly establish a winner and a loser. Something like a sense of courtesy reigned between them, which made the debate flow despite the rigid format of the questions and answers.

It was a respectful debate, with Vance looking competent in front of the cameras and Walz so down-to-earth that he sometimes bordered on chasteness, although he loosened up as the 90-minute face-off progressed. Compared to previous presidential debates — Trump versus Joe Biden in June and Trump against Kamala Harris last month — the VP candidates played politics in a civilized manner, with all their inconsistencies and contradictions and even an attempt at instant fact-checking on some points. At the end, Vance and Walz shook hands — they didn’t at the beginning — after peppering their speech with courteous phrases such as “I agree with Tim” or “I agree with the governor.” The courtesy did not, however, obscure their profound differences, especially notable in immigration, the economy and the state of democracy, over which they clashed, defending a very different version of what happened in January 2021 when Donald Trump tried to prevent the certification of Joe Biden’s victory.

Trump was the most frequently cited name, along with Harris. Holed up in the defense of their respective leaders, Vance and Walz often veered off course in their answers so as not to jeopardize the credibility of their running mates. This happened, for example, in the questions about abortion and foreign policy: the escalation of war in the Middle East was the first question, in which Trump was presented alternately as a guarantor of world stability (Vance) and as a danger to the world (Walz), but both avoided answering whether they would support a preventive attack by Israel on Iran. “We should support our allies wherever they are when they’re fighting the bad guys,” said Vance. Walz was much more cursory in his answer.

Abortion, immigration and the economy were the issues that evidenced the greatest discrepancies between both men. After almost tiptoeing around climate change, an issue that the Republican would address by producing more energy in the U.S. “and not buying solar panels in China,” the candidates were asked about the mass deportation plans that the Republicans propose. Vance denounced the existence of 25 million illegal immigrants “who take away jobs and housing from Americans” but he kept a low profile when asked if he would support the separation of parents and children at the border (“we already have separation at the border, because the Mexican cartels use children as drug mules,” he said without providing explanations). “Before we talk about deportation, we have to stop the bleeding [...] Harris is letting fentanyl in [to the U.S.] at record levels.” The first thing, he said, is to build a wall and deport those 25 million illegal immigrants. “About a million of those people have committed some form of crime in addition to crossing the border illegally. I think you start with deportations on those folks, and then I think you make it harder for illegal aliens to undercut the wages of American workers.”

Walz showed some restraint in his reply, accusing Trump of torpedoing a legislative project to reinforce border security, “with fifteen hundred new border agents,” because, he said, if the law were to go ahead, the Republican would be left without an important campaign issue, immigration.

He accused his rival of dehumanizing and vilifying human beings, such as Haitians with legal refugee status in Springfield, Ohio — the involuntary protagonists of one of the Republicans’ biggest immigration hoaxes — and engaged Vance in an attempt to verify arguments that the debate moderators cut short. Once again, the inexperienced Republican demonstrated greater ease in front of the cameras than his antagonist.

The economy, one of the main concerns of voters, once again placed them at odds despite the cordial tone of the discussion, especially in relation to inflation. Walz defended the current administration by highlighting social measures, stating how the price of insulin has dropped and credits are being granted to families. Vance replied that Harris should have taken the necessary measures as vice president, not as a candidate, to avoid the rise in the cost of food and housing by 25% and 60%, respectively. The economy never performed as well as it did under Trump, said Vance, “with inflation of 1.5%.” Walz recalled how the Republican’s tax reform “benefited the rich.”

Both brought up their origins, Vance in particular, speaking at length about his humble family struggling to make ends meet “or turn on the heat in the middle of a cold winter night,” an image he returned to at the close of his speech. Walz defended the middle class from which he comes, stressing the importance of housing and Harris’ plan for three million new homes, because “a house is much more than just an asset to be traded somewhere.“ He frequently cited specific examples of success from Minnesota, which may have distanced him from the average viewer.

On abortion, Walz went into more depth, with mixed results. The moderator asked him if he supports abortion up to the ninth month, because Minnesota’s law is one of the most progressive in the country, but the Democrat avoided answering, explaining instead the case of a Georgia woman who lost her life while traveling to another state to get an abortion.

As was the case with Harris in her debate with Trump, it has become clear that the issue of abortion is a winning card for the Democrats, given that Vance said in 2022 that he wanted abortions to be illegal throughout the country. But as he did with immigration, moderating his position, the senator chose to defend the argument that it is best to let the states regulate their own abortion policy. “I think that’s what makes the most sense in a very big, a very diverse, and let’s be honest, sometimes a very, very messy and divided country.” The matter did not escalate further.

The same thing happened with gun control and the defense of public health coverage programs, a discussion in which Walz reproached the Republicans for wanting to leave out of the system the elderly and people with cancer or pre-existing conditions, to which Vance replied that if Obamacare, the affordable health plan, is maintained it is thanks to Trump’s efforts during his presidency. Both candidates showed some agreement regarding the relevance of paid parental leave, to prevent one of the parents from having to choose between raising a child and working, although Vance declared himself above all “pro-family,” without further explanation.

The final sticking point was the state of democracy, and specifically whether events like the January 6, 2021 assault on the Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters threatened and undermined the system of government and institutions. Vance tried to turn the page on January 6 and Trump’s refusal to acknowledge his 2020 loss to Joe Biden. Walz offered what may have been his most compelling moment of the night, attacking Trump for trying to torpedo the peaceful handover of power. For Vance, “I believe that we actually do have a threat to democracy in this country, but unfortunately, it’s not the threat to democracy that Kamala Harris and Tim Walz want to talk about. It is the threat of censorship.”

The handshake with which both men ended their debate made it seem that, for one night at least, discussing politics was still possible.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition