The Vice Presidential Debate: A Performance-Driven Reflection of Our Democracy

CBS Hosts Vice Presidential Debate

What is the purpose of Vice Presidential debates? In the whirlwind of post-debate analysis, this fundamental question often gets overlooked. Debates create a distinct news cycle as mainstream media plan for, cover, and ultimately discuss and fact-check the event. Researchers are divided on how to interpret these cycles. One view holds that these cycles are manufactured for the media, a contrived spectacle of authenticity. The opposing view argues that these debates are unifying events, drawing societies together in a shared viewing experience, providing an opportunity to discuss core values and specific policies, ultimately fostering social cohesion.

The recent Vice Presidential debate exemplified both sides. It was a combination of excessive punditry and moments where we had the chance to reflect on what topics, delivered by whom, should define our national identity. As Americans watched, the debate offered a glimpse into how deeply American politics relies on the power of performance to shape our democratic trajectory.

This debate featured more substantive policy discussions than the Harris-Trump face-off, but the cracks in the Democrat’s VP selection were clearly visible. The Democrats chose Walz for his likability and to embody the coach-teacher-veteran archetype, a figure we might enjoy as our next-door neighbor or even share a beer with, even if his stories become tiresome. They selected him for his down-to-earth, bubbly, friendly-uncle-like political persona, particularly relatable in short-video format.

Walz was not chosen for his mastery of policy or professional debating skills. If a perfect debater was the goal, they would have chosen Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. Democrats consciously made a different choice, and the results were noticeable, though not unexpected.

Vance, on the other hand, managed to shed his “weird” image and become “slick,” largely eclipsing Walz’s innovative vocabulary (again, not surprising from an experienced debater from Yale Law School, who was eager to move on from the controversial remark that has followed him in recent weeks). He also effectively framed Harris as the incumbent VP, not a catalyst for change. Depending on your political leanings, you might perceive Vance as either a capable, sociopathic liar (for Democrats) or a ready-to-be President Republican for a post-Trump era (for Republicans).

Of course, the most crucial question is how those in the center will perceive the debate. Will they remember Vance’s smooth delivery, his consciously “friendly” pink tie, or his inability to answer who won the 2020 election? Will they recall Walz’s nervous, struggling, “why-am-I-even-here” moments or his strongest performance on January 6th? Or that, except for Iran’s missile attack on Israel, there were no global political topics, not even a single question about Ukraine? It’s unlikely that this debate will be a decisive factor in the final stretch of the election.

So, what was the purpose of this debate? Debates model behavior and serve as reminders that both personality and policy matter. They demonstrate that politics is, more often than not, theater—and that serves its own vital purpose. As we all increasingly struggle with polarization (just think of all the news articles before Thanksgiving on how to handle your unhinged relative), debates offer a chance to remember: democracy thrives on well-designed performances that we collectively reflect on and sometimes even emulate, especially when diverse communities gather on fragmented media platforms.

That’s why perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the single VP debate was that, overall, it was civil. Civility is often viewed as old-fashioned or restrictive, but it shone brightly yesterday. There was recognition of common ground, respectful arguments, and even a degree of empathy for mutual shortcomings.

As we swiftly move on to the next news cycles, the VP debate revealed that communication between those with stark disagreements is indeed possible. And whether we are “slick,” “weird,” or “plainspoken,” we still shake hands at the end. It shouldn’t be that hard.