Opinion: A civil debate seemed almost jarring

If you were like me, you might have felt a little dizzy Tuesday night after hearing candidates for vice president treat each other, at times, like human beings.
You might have reached for the smelling salts after hearing answer after answer proceed uninterrupted. No smirks, shaking heads or sarcastic facial expressions? What’s the world coming to?
Was that Nixon and Kennedy out there? Was it Reagan and Mondale without the humor?
Have we come so far in less than a decade that civility on a major debate stage makes us feel as if we’re watching an old black-and-white movie?
Apparently.
A lot of post-debate news reports have mentioned civility, as if it were some strange visitor from the past making a cool, retro-like reappearance.
Did Vance really just express sympathy for Walz’ teenage son witnessing a shooting?
Did Walz just say he agreed with some of the things Vance said?
Did Vance just say some of Walz’ ideas were “halfway decent”?
Were the candidates and their wives really all shaking hands afterward, and even with the moderators?
As Bill Goodykoontz of the Arizona Republic wrote, when was the last time you could imagine two debaters like this going out for drinks afterward? “If Americans really do long for a return to boring politics, these two might be the ones to deliver it,” he wrote.
But maybe it’s also time for a reality check.
These were candidates for vice president, not the big kahunas. Even in contentious 2020, the debate right here in Utah between Kamala Harris and Mike Pence was mostly civil. Oh, there was that moment when Pence tried interrupting and Harris flared, “Mr. Vice President, I’m speaking. If you don’t mind letting me finish, then we can have a conversation.”
But remember, the night was unremarkable enough that the biggest star was the fly that planted itself in Pence’s hair and refused to leave.
Remember, too, that Vance came into Tuesday’s debate with the baggage of having disparaged “childless cat ladies” and defending unsubstantiated claims about undocumented Haitians eating household pets in Springfield, Ohio.
Walz, the likable, old football coach, entered with baggage of his own. There were his claims of being in Tiananmen Square in China during pro-democracy demonstrations and about discrepancies concerning the rank he held when he retired from the National Guard.
Both of them had plenty to gain by showing themselves to the nation as amiable, level-headed and reasonable Tuesday night. Yes, moderators had to cut their microphones as Vance insisted on pursuing the legal distinctions of Haitian refugees in Ohio. That hardly seemed to matter much, however, other than to Republicans who noted CBS had said it wouldn’t fact check the candidates live, but that viewers could follow a QR code to online fact checks.
The nice-guy strategy might have worked. As The Hill noted, A CBS poll found 42% of debate watchers said Vance won, and 41% picked Walz — a statistical tie. And while CNN reported similar results, it compared these to a pre-debate poll in which voters preferred Walz 54-45.
And there was no studio audience on Tuesday. The silence must have had some impact.
All of which is, of course, rather cynical reasoning. If today’s hyper-partisan political atmosphere produced a civil, even collegial, debate, do we need to dwell on the possible strategic reasons? Shouldn’t we just celebrate it?
As The Hill noted, “The event marked one of the most civil national-level debates in recent history. There was no name-calling or personal attacks, and the men often agreed with each other and shared emotion about their children.”
Yes, there were differences of opinion on substantive issues. But there were substantive issues. And there was real debate.
What’s not to like about that?
Ever since Donald Trump emerged on the national scene as a legitimate contender, interruptions, insults and put-downs have exhausted debate watchers.
It’s common political wisdom to say vice presidential debates don’t move the needle on elections. That’s probably still true. But perhaps Tuesday’s debate was a glimpse into the future. Perhaps the nation will see a return to a higher form of political discussion — one with knives sheathed.
Wouldn’t that be nice?