PrintWalz-Vance debate revealed differences (but was too friendly)
Tim Walz and J.D. Vance debated Wednesday night.
The debate was gracious on both sides. The moderators of the debate asked a number of policy questions, and each candidate answered giving some deference to the other candidate and in most cases suggesting there was some room for compromise on specific laws/policies that would need to be enacted during the next four years.
Yet the tone of good will and compromise that each tried to establish to some degree was false and misleading. The differences between the two candidates and the presidential candidates with whom each is running could not be more profound.
One candidate -- Walz -- represents government solutions to all problems, or, in other words, some form of socialism or communism to establish “fairness” in governance, while the Trump camp supports our federal system of government with its checks and balances between the states and the federal government and the respective branches of government, and the supply and demand marketplace to solve more of our economic issues.
For example, Trump wants to tax imports from Asian countries where goods are made by workers sometimes paid a mere $3 a day, and provide tax breaks for companies to establish plants in the U.S. to produce goods rather than create plants in those Asian countries like the PRC, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, etc.
Thus, the Trump administration would be resisting the trend towards globalization of markets and reinforce the need to bring jobs back to the U.S. He would penalize the exporting of jobs by multinational corporations.
The Democrats support a green energy agenda while Trump and the Republicans are committed to free markets and the continued viability of oil, gas, and coal as the basis of our wealth and productivity. The Democrats believe in continual negotiation with dictators and belligerent actors on the world stage with payoffs leading to increased control over their irrational lust for power.
Republicans under Trump are more willing to bluntly assert U.S. power and determination that peace will prevail and to imply or explicitly threaten bad actors on the international scene who would resist the call to self-control.
Further, in the debate between Walz and Vance, Walz criticized the idea that each state would have different abortion laws.
But this is exactly what federalism requires. Abortion is not a right guaranteed by our Constitution and that is exactly why the Supreme Court found it to be un-Constitutional.
Although the stakes in abortion are higher than drivers’ licenses, driver’s license authorization under our system of checks and balances is not under our system a matter to be governed by the federal government.
Just as Roe v. Wade was found to be unconstitutional, any law regarding abortion passed by Congress would likely also be found to be unconstitutional because it would violate the Ninth and/or Tenth Amendments of the Constitution.
The federal government cannot tell us how much milk to keep in our refrigerators, and in parallel fashion, despite the drama of issues of life and death, it cannot establish rules for all states regarding the life of the unborn.
Of course, the 800-pound gorilla in the room in this debate is that the God of the Bible rejects abortion and infanticide in any and all forms.
This “policy” is actually enacting sin as lawful.
Abortion should be unlawful in most circumstances and even where the mother’s life is in jeopardy abortion should not automatically kick in.
I know a woman who is the mother of three girls. When she was pregnant with the youngest one, and delivery was near, the doctors told her that if she went through with the birth, it was likely that she would die. At the risk of her own life, this loving mother went ahead with the birth rather than deny her soon-to-be daughter the right to life. Happily, and by the grace of God, mother as well as daughter lived, and both are alive until this day. I believe this anecdote provides a different perspective on the question of “choice.”
Walz challenged Vance on the legitimacy of the election results. The question of Trump’s reaction to the outcome of the 2020 election was the last question asked by the moderators, and was clearly an anti-Trump question as it was intended to portray Trump as a sore loser.
Vance evaded any criticism of his running mate, but realistically noted that Trump vacated the office of presidency on Jan. 20, 2021. Trump had called for peaceful protests, and had broached the subject of bringing in the National Guard which was denied him by Nancy Pelosi and the Washington D.C. Mayor, Muriel Bowser.
Lastly, Vance correctly brought up multiple times that the surge in migration into the millions has to an important degree forced up the prices of housing in the U.S.
These numbers enhance the demand curve for housing which forces up prices.
At the same time, with restrictions on gas production, gas prices will rise. If the cost of fuel for trucks rises, then if those trucks are carrying, for example, lumber for building houses, the cost of that lumber will be higher.
This is not the only reason for higher prices for products, but these two factors, easily seen during the Biden years, are significant factors in producing inflation and housing shortages.
The unassailable logic of that comment was a powerful reminder that immigration policy (or lack of policy) has an economic impact that extends beyond the simple numbers of those crossing the border.
The debate was courteous and professional, but the Harris contempt for free markets and for our federal system of government as well as her lack of experience and arbitrary selection as VP and as presidential candidate were not vetted to the degree this writer would have liked.
E. Jeffrey Ludwig has taught American History and Literature at Harvard and served on the Editorial Board of the Harvard Educational Review. He also taught high school for many years and was listed multiple times in Who’s Who Among America’s High School Teachers. He has published four books available at amazon.com and is Pastor of Bible Christian Church.
