Walz-Vance debate was an October surprise
Tim Walz made a mistake in being genuinely Midwest nice. That’s not an October surprise.
The most unremarkable thing that happened in the 48 hours since the two US vice-presidential picks engaged in a cordial, good-tempered debate, on live television: J D Vance returned to form and junked the Midwest nice tone he had adopted while discussing policy and politics with Mr Walz.
News is in that Mr Vance is busy mocking Mr Walz.
He has decried what he called Mr Walz’s “dumbest comments” during the debate, of which he claimed there were several. In patronising fashion, he has professed sympathy for his debate opponent. “I’ve got to be honest, I feel a little bad for Governor Walz,” Mr Vance said.
Ooh…sharp and cutting.
Not nice.
The jibes are a return to the combative, angry approach Mr Vance has habitually adopted at rallies and media interviews on the 2024 election campaign trail, not to mention previous corrosive commentary on political, cultural and social issues ( “childless cat ladies” was just one in a long list of insults at entire groups of people). Indeed, nastiness has long been the chief call sign of Donald Trump’s running mate and pet faux intellectual.
Which is why the debate was a real October surprise in that Mr Vance checked his usual “angry child” attitude at the studio door and deliberately, cynically, made himself appear likeable, reasonable, well-spoken and well-meaning.
It was a performance, meant to soft-sell the authoritarian playbook being pushed by a cabal of right-wing intellectuals should Mr Trump win the White House.
It was an act – histrionically adept and perfectly calibrated – but a calculated and calculating act nonetheless.
Mr Vance is no nice guy, Midwestern or not.
As for Mr Walz, he is a nice guy, perhaps rather too nice. He should’ve realised that Mr Vance is not really nice and acted accordingly.
That said, it wouldn’t have been very Walz-ian, or nice to do. Unsurprisingly, he didn’t.
