Trumpism with a human face: J.D. Vance has done something his Republican boss cannot

Republican Vice Presidential nominee J.D. Vance handed in a bravura performance in his debate with his Democrat counterpart Tim Walz this week.

The debate was full of surprises – including the fact that the confrontation between the two politicians amounted to something approaching a genuine political debate. Even more surprisingly, it was an extremely civil and polite exchange.

In the Trump era this is an unexpected and rare occurrence. Trump is incapable of seriously debating policy issues – instead he simply abuses and insults his political opponents.

But Vance and Walz managed to engage in a policy debate of sorts and neither candidate stooped to crude personal attacks.

The most surprising aspect of the debate was that a radically new version of J.D. Vance appeared on stage – and the transformation was quite extraordinary.

Vance completely eschewed the gutter tactics of his mentor that had previously been his hallmark, and adopted the pose of a youthful, caring conservative politician who was even willing to contemplate a bi-partisan approach with Walz on certain policy issues – although not, of course, with Kamala Harris, who Vance demonised throughout the debate for her “atrocious economic record” and failure to curb mass illegal immigration.

There have been many different versions of the Vance political persona – the fierce critic of Trump, comparing him to Hitler and calling him a “fake populist”; the obsequious acolyte of Trump who was more deranged and crude than his master; and now the caring conservative engaging in serious policy debate – and one begins to wonder how many road-to-Damascus conversions Vance is capable of experiencing.

During the debate, the new J.D. Vance put forward very effectively a version of “Trumpism with a human face” that made it sound like a coherent and unthreatening political program – something that Trump himself has never been able to do.

Vance appeared supremely confident and relaxed during the debate. He spoke well, and subtly attempted to distance himself from Trump on key issues as best he could. He appeared most unconvincing when trying to defend Trump’s “stolen election” lie and his complicity in the January 6 riots. On those issues Walz quite rightly accused Vance of giving “damning non-answers”.

When Walz was speaking, Vance smiled at him – rather like a benign and youthful python eying its prey. 

The new Vance persona on display in this week’s debate is, of course, nothing more than a cleverly crafted political ploy designed to capture the votes of crucial swing voters – who Trump alienates with his divisiveness and crudity – and Vance is no more a caring conservative politician than Trump is.

But that does not matter one iota in the context of contemporary American politics – where bare-faced duplicity, anti-intellectualism and irrationality hold sway.

Vance clearly won this week’s debate. Trump, however, must be a little uneasy with the new version of his vice presidential nominee that was on display for the first time this week – because it is far removed from the inexperienced right-wing firebrand that he chose as his running mate, and the new Vance appears to be more electable than his mentor.

In fact, during the debate Vance looked much more like a presidential candidate than Trump has ever done.

Vance was very careful during the debate to praise Trump – but the Trump he described was a sanitised version and bore no resemblance the real Trump. It will be interesting to see how this dynamic plays out for the rest of the campaign, and into the future should Trump become president in November.

How did Walz respond to this new of J.D. Vance that turned up unexpectedly at this week’s debate? Not particularly well.

Walz appeared wrong-footed and perplexed. He looked gruff and grumpy as Vance grinned condescendingly and slyly at him throughout the entire debate. On some policy issues Walz spoke impressively, but he appeared flustered and flat at times.

Walz is clearly much more at home on the campaign trail where he can give his enthusiasm and emotions free rein. In the debate context he appears ill at ease, wooden and constricted. Unlike Vance, Walz nervously jotted down notes during the entire encounter – never a good look in a televised debate.

Walz looked particularly uncomfortable when he had to admit lying about being in Hong Kong at the time of the Tiananmen Square protests – describing himself as a “knucklehead” who “sometimes misspoke”.

Walz was also very reluctant to attack Vance on his previously held extremist views and policy positions. In fact he appeared not to know precisely how to deal with Vance’s new political persona – other than by accepting it at face value.

The policy debate was not particularly instructive, in large part because Vance suggested that even on issues like abortion and gun control a degree of common ground – at least in terms of ultimate aims – existed between himself and Walz, but not, of course, Harris.

Both candidates mouthed the usual platitudes about Israel, and neither was willing to contemplate American intervention to end or even contain the escalating war in the Middle East.

Vance set out a more civilised version of the Trump position on mass immigration – there was no reference pet-eating immigrants – and Walz tried as best he could to defend Harris and Biden’s abysmal record on this important issue.

Vice presidential debates do not usually determine the outcome of presidential elections, and what impact this debate will have is unclear.

J.D. Vance’s impressive performance may, however, attract some swing voters to Trump’s cause, and if that is the case, November’s election will be even closer than is appears to be at present.