Civility in Electoral Debates: Performance or Progress?

Considering that the United States’ political landscape is often deemed polarizing, contentious, and divisive, many viewers were shocked to repeatedly hear the phrase “I agree with you,” at the start of a running mate’s response to their opponent’s comment during the recent vice presidential debate.

On October 1, 2024, Ohio Senator J.D Vance and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz geared up for an undeniably cordial debate — the two being Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mates in the 2024 Presidential Election, respectively.

With Election Day quickly approaching, many eyes turn to national and state-wide polls, with constituents wondering how individual actions and statements might push one candidate over the edge — granting them just enough support to grasp 270 electoral votes in November. With such a slim margin of support between Harris and Trump — with <em>270 to Win</em> reporting Harris polling a mere 2.4% higher nationally than Trump as of October 10, 2024 — many wonder whether the recent debate between the candidate’s running mates could cause substantial adjustment in levels of support.

The discussion between Walz and Vance comprehensively explored several significant policy areas at the forefront of the American electorate’s minds; throughout the debate, highly contested topics such as abortion access, climate change, immigration, international conflict, the January 6th insurrection, and Second Amendment rights. Despite expected contention between candidates — considering an increasingly polarized environment which has plagued the American political landscape in recent years — Walz and Vance often voiced agreement with one another; in an article released by the National Broadcasting Company, Henry J. Gomez and Allan Smith confided that, “perhaps the most profound disagreement of the night came from inside the Democratic Party, where some found Walz too nice.” Walz and his Republican counterpart uncovered common ground on minimizing gun violence, reorganizing present legislative funding to more effectively approach the U.S-Mexico border, approaching reproductive healthcare access (discussing abortion, fertility treatments, and child care), and combating an ever-expanding housing crisis.

In several, undoubtedly fascinating cases, the prospective vice presidents expressed their agreement with one another, but did not fail to point out the disparity between the position of their debate partner, and their respective running mate. As they covered the topic of immigration policy, Vance voiced his perception of Harris’ differing stances; while discussing consensus regarding reproductive healthcare, Walz pointed to Trump’s dissent.

While Walz and Vance expressed agreement with several of their counterparts’ policy suggestions, the Public Broadcasting Service described such consensuses — or, in other cases, disagreements — as being “overshadowed” by the two potential vice presidents’ “differing visions of what American leadership should look like.” Such insinuates that the current presidential race may hinge more on candidates’ temperaments and leadership style, rather than starkly differing policy positions — especially considering the capacity for consensus reflected by Walz and Vance. Others are unsure, viewing the relatively tame, agreeable debate as largely performance-driven, rather than an expression of a step towards more effective bipartisanship.

Ultimately, the biggest takeaway for many audience members was not one specific policy issue, but rather the sheer civility of both candidates. In the context of the recent Presidential debate between Harris and Trump, which was described by the BBC as a night when “insults flew and interruptions were frequent,” Walz and Vance’s politeness was quite shocking. However, this dramatically different style of debate raises the question: is civility in presidential debates a good thing for American politics?

Interestingly, many democrats have already voiced that Walz’s non-confrontational behavior with Vance was problematic. In fact, progressive pundit Wajahat Ali, in a post on the social platform X, claimed that Walz was “only normalizing [Vance’s] extremism and his hate against women,” and that he views his politeness as a sign of “dems playing scared for no reason.” Moreover, many voiced concerns that agreements reached among the candidates were merely facades; subsequent to the debate, articles and interviews explored the extent to which candidates’ positions were grounded in fact. National Public Radio, in a fact-checking article composed by the NPR staff, disclosed that statements referencing lower domestic production and manufacturing under the Biden administration were inaccurate (“last year [being] a record year for domestic production of natural gas”), alongside of blanket statements about immigration derailing economic growth, and the levels of illicit fentanyl entering the U.S across the southern border. Such voiced concerns and falsified comments illuminate the potentially detrimental effects on American politics if candidates face pressure to, above all else, remain civil; should a candidate adopt such a mindset, they may, too, construe false claims in debate for the sake of reaching an expected middle ground with their opponent.

However, there many appreciated the respectful nature of the debate, including SHP Social Science Teacher Ms. Williams. Williams mentioned how, historically, courteous and respectful debates were the norm of American political culture, not an irregularity. Further, Williams commented on the large amount of personal attacks that have plagued politics in recent years; notably, Trump calling Hillary Clinton a “bad hombre” and “nasty woman” in their presidential debate during the 2016 election. As anyone who has taken a class with Williams knows, she “loves politics, but hates the nastiness of it,” and this debate was a refreshing reprieve from the uncivil nature of modern politics. “Before 2016,” said Williams, “the debates were much more civil. They had a lot of challenging back-and-forth…but nothing ugly, personally.” Additionally, she outlined that she does not subscribe to the belief that the debate was purely facade-driven: “I thought the [candidates] were actually similar to each other in a lot of ways. They’re both from the midwest, they’re dads, they have a lot of common ground.”

Williams concluded that the civility of this debate was especially significant due to the example the two candidates provided to the American electorate; “I think it’s really important civic discourse,” outlined Williams. “I love talking to people who are different from me, and it’s so important for that to be modeled.”

Varying interpretations of the debate leave many viewers wondering where the boundary lay between civility and the maintenance of political stances — and the ramifications of blurring lines between sustaining strongly held beliefs, and empathetically approaching opposing viewpoints in a polarized political landscape.