OCT 3, 2024 | OPINION | By Margaret Freeman
It has become increasingly easy to get lost in the humor and “meme-ability” of politics in our country at the moment. But, behind the incoherent rambling and talk of coconut trees are people whose power and policies will have implications on the country for years to come.
The final debate of the 2024 Election between the Republican running mate for Donald Trump, Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio and Democratic running mate to Kamala Harris, Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota, provided a final opportunity for both parties to discuss what the next four years would look like under their leadership.
The vice presidential debate on Tuesday, Oct. 1, was exactly what the country needed in order to step back from the comedy and step into a slightly more civil and hard-hitting conversation about the issues facing America today.
While there were funny moments from both candidates, the debate focused mainly on past policies each candidate has enacted and how they will translate to their possible future term in the White House.
While the debate moderators asked questions surrounding the spreading conflict in the Middle East, child and health care, gun violence, the environment and their personal qualifications, both candidates spent a majority of their allotted time on the economy, immigration and reproductive rights. These are all topics that have consistently divided the American people and are points of criticism for both Trump and Harris.
When asked about the economy, Walz continued to circle back to Harris’s plan to lower the cost of groceries, cap prescription drug costs, provide a $6,000 child tax credit and boost small businesses. Walz also criticized the 20% sales tax from Project 2025 and the tax cuts Trump wants to give to the wealthiest people in the country.
J.D. Vance, on the other hand, focused on how many goods sold in the U.S. are made in other countries, taking manufacturing jobs out of the country. Vance also noted that he wanted “common sense” economics and that Trump had the “wisdom and the courage” to enact these policies in his first term.
On immigration, Vance talked a lot about drugs entering the country from illegal drug cartels. Even when answering questions about childcare and gun violence, he continuously mentioned fentanyl and guns coming into the country with illegal immigrants. Vance also criticized Harris for not doing more about immigration as the current vice president to Joe Biden, while praising the strict immigration ban as a defining bill of Trump’s first term.
Walz primarily focused on the Trump administration’s vilification of illegal immigrants and ways to improve the legal process for people seeking asylum. Walz deflected criticisms of Harris’s lack of action in regard to border security while painting her as someone who is tough on transnational gangs during her time as the California Attorney General.
The other topic that dominated the debate was reproductive rights. When asked if he still supports abortion in the ninth month, Walz talked about how maternal mortality rose after the Supreme Court overturned Roe V. Wade in 2022. Walz took a pro-choice stance repeatedly mentioning Amber Thurman, a Georgia woman who died crossing state lines to access abortion care.
Walz said that he is “pro-women” and that he and Harris would not only support abortion as a choice made between a woman and her doctor, but also make it more affordable to have children, tying back to the Child Tax Credit.
Vance, on the other hand, stated that he was “pro-family” and would push abortion to be a state-by-state issue. His argument that America is a diverse place and while unplanned pregnancies can hurt people’s lives, abortion legislation in individual states should represent the people living in that state.
Aside from the policy debate between the two candidates, this was also an opportunity to see who they are as people. From the first question, it was clear that Walz was nervous as he stared into the camera. As the debate progressed, he became more comfortable and spent time developing himself as a down to earth, reasonable person who still held some more moderate viewpoints on things like the Second Amendment. As the debate progressed, Walz took a defensive stance especially when asked to explain discrepancies about if he was in China during the Tiananmen Square Protests. His Minnesota demeanor also began to waver as the debate got more heated.
J.D. Vance was more coherent than his running mate has previously been in debates, but he still exhibited some traits of the extremist conservative party, like calling climate change “weird science” and mentioning botched late-term abortions. His coherence allowed for viewers to understand the specific things the Trump/Vance ticket wants to achieve while in office.
Throughout the debate, there was slightly more decorum than in previous debates, with Walz saying that both he and Vance agree on the issues in the country and Vance admitting that Harris’s economic plan “sounds pretty good.”
Across the board, this debate was policy heavy and gave viewers more concrete examples of what each candidate will do if elected despite both Vance and Walz evading several questions. While many voters may be undecided, the final debate of this historic election showed the United States what a future would look like under two very different candidates.