In last week’s debate between the vice-presidential nominees, JD Vance and Tim Walz both conducted themselves as adults. But some of their answers nonetheless reflected the hold that extremists in both parties may have on their candidates for office.
It was refreshing to see two grownups debate each other with seriousness, substance, and common courtesy, and with none of the name-calling and histrionics which have characterized and degraded debates between presidential candidates in recent years. Absent (and good riddance!) were the infantile rants of Donald Trump responding to the adolescent baiting from Kamala Harris.
But less satisfactory was the substance of some of the answers offered by Walz and Vance. If they’re not extremists in some policy areas themselves, they’ve let themselves be cowed by extremists who have too much influence within the Democratic and Republican Parties.
Before primaries became the main means of selecting presidential nominees, party organization leaders (or “bosses”) used their powers to select convention delegates who would support the nomination of moderates for president. Their main reason for doing so was simple. In a general election, the voters will invariably choose the more moderate candidate, whether Democratic or Republican, over one who, rightly or wrongly, is seen as more extreme. Therefore, bosses in both parties supported moderates since moderates win general elections and bosses always wanted to win.
But primaries greatly reduce the power of party organization leaders to be bosses and to promote moderates. Voters with extremist views can vote directly to nominate candidates or to select convention delegates who will nominate them. Moreover, the more extreme a voter’s views, the more likely he is to vote in his party’s primary at the expense of moderates, who themselves are less likely to vote. Therefore party nominees will be more mindful of the views of extremists, given their outsize influence in party primaries.
Consider, for example, Walz’s response to whether he’d favor any ban at all on abortion, even in the third trimester or nineth month of a woman’s pregnancy. Harris and Walz have really pushed the abortion issue in this campaign. It is the one issue on which the American people trust the Democrats in overwhelming numbers. Anywhere from two-thirds to three-fourths of the electorate oppose any limits on abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. Moreover, anti-abortion extremists within the GOP are pushing for an almost complete abortion ban, with almost no exceptions except possibly abortion to save the life of the pregnant woman, and frequently, even this theoretical exception is so narrowly defined as to inhibit doctors from granting life-saving care to women in dire medical distress.
But while most Americans oppose abortion bans during the first trimester, they nonetheless support limits on abortion during the second and especially third trimesters of pregnancy. But Democratic officeholders and candidates, including both Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, cannot bring themselves to specify what limits on abortion, if any, they’d support before birth. When asked, they’re likely to say either that third trimester abortions are too rare to worry about, or they cite the limits once imposed by Roe v. Wade, but without admitting that Roe v. Wade left open the possibility of third trimester limits to save the life of the unborn baby. Whatever their personal beliefs, if any, they’re unwilling to say anything that contradicts the views of the most extreme elements within the party on this issue.
And then there’s the case of JD Vance refusing to abandon the position that the 2020 election was stolen or endorse the decision of Mike Pence to not overturn the electoral vote on January 6, 2021. If Vance believes that the election outcome was fair and that Pence acted correctly, he is certainly unwilling to say so in public. His refusal to answer questions on this subject and his determination to change the subject were truly breathtaking. Does he truly share the views of the most vocal Republicans on this issue, who continue to maintain the election was stolen from Trump and are determined to “stop the steal” in 2024? Or is he simply in thrall to them and, like Walz, twisting himself into a pretzel to avoid giving a forthright answer which might antagonize Trump and the GOP base?
Presidential primaries make the nomination process far more democratic today than it used to be before, say, 1972. But the price we’ve paid for gaining more democracy is the probability that the most extreme elements in each party will exercise more influence than may be healthy, and thereby reduce the candor, civility, and reason with which the challenges we face should be addressed. Last week, both Vance and Walz did reasonably and relatively well, but the presence of extremists in each party prevented them from being better.
Malcolm L. Cross has lived in Stephenville since 1987 and taught politics and government at Tarleton for 36 years, retiring in 2023. His political and civic activities include service on the Stephenville City Council (2000-2014) and on the Erath County Republican Executive Committee (1990-2024). He was Mayor pro-tem of Stephenville from 2008 to 2014. He has served on the Board of Directors of the Stephenville
Economic Development Authority since 2018 and as chair of the Erath County Appraisal District’s Appraisal Review Board since 2015. He is also a member of the Stephenville Rotary Club, the Board of Vestry of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church, and the Executive Committee of the Boy Scouts’ Pecan Valley District. Views expressed in this column are his and do not reflect those of The Flash as a whole.
Any human that votes for this wannabe dictator, that says our fallen service men and women are suckers and losers, will be to blame for the loss the folly and the evil that will come to us and will ruin America for allowing Trump, Putin’s little boy in.