No place for a ‘knucklehead’ as Vance bests Walz

Vice-presidential debates in US elections rarely have a significant impact on the race. But with Donald Trump declining Kamala Harris’s invitation to a second debate before November 5, the encounter between their running mates, JD Vance and Tim Walz, mattered. It provided more policy insight into where the US would be headed, depending on who won, than last month’s acrimonious encounter between Mr Trump and Ms Harris.

If there was a winner it was probably Mr Vance. The sarcastic candidate of “childless cat ladies” notoriety was nowhere in sight. He was respectful, well prepared, articulate and relentless in reminding voters about what he called the “Kamala Harris” administration. His performance contrasted with that of Mr Walz, who appeared likeable and avuncular but at times seemed frenetic, resembling a rabbit caught in headlights.

Little about the debate, however, is likely to change the view that US voters are faced with an unenviable choice in the contest for the White House. Mr Trump was quick to declare that the smooth-talking Mr Vance, 40, “perfectly articulated our vision” and to pronounce him the victor. Mr Walz’s performance is unlikely to reassure voters worried about the Harris ticket.

That said, it is hard to square Mr Vance’s sudden, ambitious enthusiasm for Mr Trump with his previous denunciation as recently as 2020, when he said “I’m a never Trump guy … I never liked him” and warned that Mr Trump might be an “American Hitler”. On Wednesday his view was “I was wrong about Donald Trump”, conveniently blaming “dishonest” media stories.

When it came to acknowledging that Mr Trump lost the 2020 election, Mr Vance could not bring himself to do so, despite the countless court cases that have ruled against Mr Trump’s claims. Instead, Mr Vance obfuscated and indicated, disturbingly, that if he were ever in the position of former vice-president Mike Pence on January 6, 2021, he would not have stood his ground in defence of the US Constitution.

Mr Walz, 66, was no better about his embarrassing record of claims he was in Hong Kong for a teaching position during the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing and that it had affected his political beliefs ever since. He was not there until months later. In the debate he conceded that he had “misspoke”, just as he did about his rank on retirement from the National Guard. His admission that “I’m a knucklehead at times, I will talk a lot” was more accurate. A knucklehead, however, is not what is needed.

On the most important foreign policy issue of the day, neither candidate was resolute on whether he would support an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear installations. Mr Walz ducked and weaved; Mr Vance said it was Israel’s choice but at least said a Trump administration would support it. Israel’s battle for survival deserved better. So do American voters facing the choice between Ms Harris and Mr Trump.