“Everybody’s got a plan,” Mike Tyson once said, “until they get punched in the face.” The American media’s plan for last night’s vice-presidential debate between Senator J.D. Vance and Governor Tim Walz was that the two running mates would, all at once, throw punch after punch at each other while, between blows, vying to come across as America’s favourite heartland dad. Instead, the media itself got it right in the smacker. The soporific exchange was more like this: everybody’s got a punch ready until they get weighed down with a script.
Call it the Y2k debate, after the supposed “Y2k” computer bug that people feared would cause computers to crash when the clock struck midnight on the last night of 1999, causing widespread chaos and destruction. In the event, it was just another New Year. It was supposed to showcase pugilism and fireworks as the two embodiments of the countries’ enmities and divisions finally met face to face and lunged at each other for the glory of the respective tops of their tickets. But the match was so anticlimactic that Walz lightly scratching his nose — an old Method-acting technique — took on the proportions of a political event.
And, indeed, the seemingly spontaneous bit of being human was a refreshing break from Walz sticking so closely to what he had been told to say that he didn’t seem to have had time to work through and fully comprehend what he was saying. Repeating his oft-told account of meeting with the parents of children who had been killed in the Sandy Hook school shooting, Walz said, “I sat in that office with those Sandy Hook parents. I’ve become friends with school shooters. I’ve seen it.” He didn’t come across as a huggable Midwestern dad so much as someone, like Kamala Harris herself, who had been caught in one of the most improbable rip tides in American history and swept out into water far over his head. Again and again, as Vance talked, Walz stared at him in a kind of panic over how he was going to respond. And when he did respond, he seemed astonished at the fact that he was actually speaking himself.
For all Vance’s porcelain poise, in contrast to Walz’s near hysteria, Vance stumbled in the opposite direction, toward a sort of Ivy-League passive-aggressive self-consciousness about his manners. He suddenly turned ingratiating toward his opponent, whom he had been maligning on the campaign trail for months. Walz: “I’ve enjoyed tonight’s debate, and I think there was a lot of commonality here.” Vance: “Me too, man.”
The sudden lurch from campaign-hustings vitriol to two playground adversaries making nice in the principal’s office should not have been a surprise. What used to be called “woke”, and now is a treacly national style, is really nothing more than a super-Darwinian society adapting to ever more virulent forms of competition and one-upmanship by turning the display of virtue — in this case, a fireworks display of reasonableness and respect — into a lethal social weapon.
Or to couch it in psychological terms, it is the political form of narcissistic mirroring. That occurs when someone who is unable to relate to another person on an intuitive, emotional level simply reflects back to the other person the latter’s own identity. Since such mirroring is the result of calculation rather than connection, it usually masks intense hostility, even hatred. This is why, in America for the past couple of decades, “empathy” has become sort of a celebrity emotion, as opposed to sympathy. If you feel sympathy toward someone, you both understand them and feel concern for them. Being empathetic is merely knowing how to impersonate someone. Last night, Walz and Vance oozed toxic empathy.
And yet, such a mental process might well represent a glimmer of hope for a divided country. Politicians on each side live a double life. They feed their egos by roaring out to their followers just what they want to hear. But once on the national stage, the moment their opponent’s position becomes more popular than theirs, they assimilate it, no matter how much at odds it is with the sentiments they display to the faithful. After all, the faithful will understand. They do the same thing every day themselves. And there was Vance, right after the debate ended, rushing over to shake Walz’s hand just as Harris had rushed over to Trump to shake his hand right before their debate had started, thus establishing her dominance and authority.
Both candidates said they had much in common with each other so many times that you wondered whether the country was divided at all. Since running mates are famously assigned the role of Shakespearean assassin — you know what to do, just don’t tell me you did it — you wondered if this was simply a failure of nerve on the part of both men, a sudden surrender to the pious illusions of self-effacing harmony that seem to be the only glue, sanctimonious as it is, holding American society together.
But the phoney bonhomie was really a strategy shared, oddly, by both campaigns. Not in recent memory has the country been offered a choice between, in Harris, a vapid mediocrity, and in Trump, an unbalanced malignity. And not in recent memory have the running mates of the two presidential candidates been clearly more qualified than the latter — though barely so — to sit in the White House The only difference between them is that Vance lies and gets away with it and Walz lies and gets caught. A bravura performance by either man would have only put the profoundly flawed tops of their tickets into greater relief.
One thing is for sure. If it turns out that Walz was telling another lie when he said that his son witnessed a shooting at a community center — Vance’s ears perked up at a possible opportunity before he quickly faked caring and concern — then he is finished as a viable vice-presidential candidate. Yet it would hardly matter. The debate began with a question posed by the moderators: Iran is two weeks away from making a nuclear bomb. Would you support an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear reactors? Neither Walz nor Vance answered the question. The tragedy in the pathetic comedy of last night was this anti-debate’s revelation of the vacuum at the heart of American power, and of the country’s growing helplessness to protect itself as history rushes to fill it.
Disclaimer
Some of the posts we share are controversial and we do not necessarily agree with them in the whole extend. Sometimes we agree with the content or part of it but we do not agree with the narration or language. Nevertheless we find them somehow interesting, valuable and/or informative or we share them, because we strongly believe in freedom of speech, free press and journalism. We strongly encourage you to have a critical approach to all the content, do your own research and analysis to build your own opinion.
We would be glad to have your feedback.
Source: UnHerd Read the original article here: https://unherd.com/