Wise Rhetoric and Transgressions: The Duel between JD Vance and Tim Walz

The vice-presidential debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz yesterday harkened back to calmer, more substantive campaign times from the pre-Trump era. This tranquility often made it easier to understand the political differences between the two campaigns. Today, we take a look at four essential differences that emerged during the debate, highlight key moments, and present comments on the performances of Vance and Walz. #### Foreign Policy The topic of foreign policy was clearly in focus at the start of the duel, and both candidates set out their core principles. Walz, representing Kamala Harris' campaign, argued that Donald Trump was too unpredictable to lead the free world. He was too self-centered and tended to court dictators like Vladimir Putin, which explained the fears of many U.S. allies about a second Trump term. "Our allies understand that Donald Trump is unstable," Walz emphasized. This unpredictability, Harris and Walz argued, is something the world cannot afford, especially in times of crises in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia. In contrast, Vance urged voters to compare the global situation during the presidencies of Trump and Biden. Under Biden's watch, there had been Hamas attacks on Israel, Putin's invasion of Ukraine, and a more aggressive stance from China. Under Trump, there had been no new major conflicts. "Ask yourself," Vance said, "when was the last time an American president had no major conflicts?" Vance argued that Trump's unpredictability had kept America’s enemies in check better than Biden’s diplomacy. #### Immigration The topic of immigration also provided plenty of fuel for the debate and was directly addressed by both vice-presidential candidates. Both Harris and Trump have weaknesses in this area, and the debate revealed the divergences in the respective political approaches of the two camps.