Module 6: “Call in the attack dogs” The Vice Presidential Debates

 

    Over the course of American electoral history presidential debates have changed the course of elections, drawn millions upon millions of eyeballs, and led to more arguments than the state of Israel. Yet throughout this contentious history of yelling, lies, counter lies, and nonsense, one political event usually gets somehow more contentious, the vice presidential debate. This is because historically the President or the Presidential candidate is supposed to maintain an element of decorum and respect, in order to inherit or keep the office of the Presidency. However, as we have found over the course of Donald Trump's political career that he himself is his own attack dog, and Mike Pence is a more traditional face for the administration. Thus the Vice Presidential debate that took place resembled what a Presidential debate should look like. While neither side had a revelatory win or moment, both sides maintained their talking points, forced each other into awkward policy based questions and did not veer into an aimless shouting match.

The first topic I will discuss is the pace and style of the debate itself. Which in the current election and climate is a very legitimate area of discussion. That both politicians handled themselves as professionals, and used classical debate tactics to try and win the debate, not a shouting match. If they did not have an answer to a question, they rejected the premise of the question, and pivoted to something they did want to talk about. The another tactic used was to try and create a “viral moment.” An example of this can be seen during a moment where Senator Harris near famously exclaimed ““Mr. Vice President, I’m speaking,” to lament a point about respecting her time during the debate. However Pence showed his high level debate ability by quickly retorting “It’d be important if you said the truth,” a line that quickly neutralized the potential “viral moment.” Something the Trump/Pence team must have emphasized going into this debate as Senator Harris made an argument for the Democratic Presidential nomination partially based on her career as a prosecutor and her ability to debate. Therefore Vice President Pence showing an ability to hang in and match wits with Harris must be considered a major win for Republican operatives.

The Second Topic was the Pandemic, since the Vice President himself is supposedly leading the administration's response. A response that by almost every available metric being measured by international NGOs is considered to be a failure. A point that Senator Harris correctly laid into many times. The Vice President again showed his adept debate skills by deflecting the failure away from the trump administration, and instead saying Harris was charging the American people as a whole with the failure. Little actual information was gained through this argument and in fact, the best that can be said is that the two sides remain locked in their views on the handling of the pandemic.

Thirdly, and where Senator Harris scored her biggest points, is the discussion over the ACA, or Obamacare. In this discussion Senator Harris was able to lament a point to the American people that crosses over party, class, and race loyalties, and that's healthcare. In a powerful moment Harris exclaimed  “If you love someone who has a preexisting condition, they’re coming for you. If you are under the age of 26 on your parents’ coverage, they’re coming for you.” While appeals to fear are my least favorite form of argument, the point was still salient for the millions of Americans who do have health issues. As the Trump administration has tried to repeal the ACA countless times. So Harris wanted to wake up the millions of Americans who could possibly suffer if Trumps policy were to be enacted.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Birth of a Nation Paper

  The Birth of a Nation is a historically important film made in  1915, that covers the era of reconstruction flowing into the films present day. While the film is controversial, and in this writer's eyes downright disgusting, it is historically important for a number of reasons. Many of which will be listed in this paper. To note, being of African American heritage and having been partially raised by the daughter of black-Indian sharecropper born in 1929, my views on the subject matter, and the film are inherently biased. Despite my fervent hate of this film, and the makers of it, and the experience of watching it, there are some important notes that can be taken away.  One of the most impactful things the film portrays is a country still grappling with the legacy of the Civil War. The idea of brother against brother or Kin against Kin, that the Civil War did touch upon almost every aspect of American life, and every American life. As shown by the effect it has on both f...
Read more

Entry 2: Connecting class readings, and the Idiocracy to the 2004 Presidential election

  The film Idiocracy, by Mike Judge features many humorous and scarily accurate assessments of American Democracy. Like most Utopian or dystopian tales, the story largely reflects on the time it was written/made, which in this case was during or in the immediate fall out of the Bush V Kerry election. While understanding of the 2004 election has grown in the decades following, at the time of the film one of the major talking points of the race was the “electability” of George W Bush, with much emphasis put on his someone “you'd want to grab a beer with” persona.  What stemmed from that persona was an assumption (and was hoped to be an overreaction) that the American people wanted someone like them to be president.  A horrible idea when one considers that America is one of the most unhealthy, overweight, and poorly educated nations on earth, but a perfect setting for the film Idiocracy.  One of the cornerstones to George W Bush's electable persona was his plain spok...
Read more