Vice presidential candidates Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz engaged in a cordial yet spirited debate on Oct. 1. Both conceded a measure of agreement with the other on some policies, though each presented a vastly different picture of the present reality and the path to a better future.
The candidates met in New York for their first and only debate. Throughout the 90-minute event, each worked to present himself as relatable to the audience.
Walz-Vance Debate Heavy on Policy, Stays Cordial
Getty Images via NTD
Getty Images via NTD
“I recognize a lot of Americans don’t know who either one of us are,” Vance said during his first turn at the podium. He went on to speak of his early life in a working-class family, his mother’s struggle with addiction, his military service, and attending college on the GI Bill.
Walz described his middle-class, Midwestern roots. “I grew up in small, rural Nebraska, town of 400, a town that you rode your bike with your buddies till the street lights come on,” he said. Walz spoke about joining the National Guard at age 17 and later becoming a school teacher.
The debate was focused on a policy-driven agenda ranging from strategies for U.S. involvement in the Middle East to housing, health care, gun violence, and the state of American democracy.
Though the debate was at times lively, the candidates found opportunities to agree on policy goals, though their strategies for reaching them diverged widely.
Similar Ends, Different Means
When discussing solutions to the problem of school shootings, Vance expressed sympathy after hearing that Walz’s son had witnessed a shooting.
Yet the candidates differed on how to solve the problem. Vance cited a number of factors, including the mental health crisis and the availability of illegal weapons. He said, “I think the answer is, and I say this not loving the answer ... that we have to increase security in our schools.”
Walz acknowledged the need for increased availability of mental health care, but said, “I think what we end up doing is we start looking for a scapegoat. Sometimes it just is the guns.”
Similarly, the two agreed on the need for more affordable housing but not on the means to provide it.
Speaking of Vice President Kamala Harris’s plan to provide $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time home buyers and a $10,000 tax credit, Walz said, “We don’t have enough naturally affordable housing, but we can make sure that the government’s there to help kick start it.”
Vance said boosting the construction industry would help alleviate the problem. “[W]e have a lot of federal lands that aren’t being used for anything,” Vance said. “[T]hey could be places where we build a lot of housing. And I do think that we should be opening up building in this country, we have a lot of land that could be used.”
Attacking the Top of the Ticket
Both candidates engaged in attacks, but they were mostly directed toward their opponent’s running mate. Walz said he agreed “with a lot of what Sen. Vance said about what’s happening. His running mate, though, does not, and that’s the problem.”
During a discussion of illegal immigration, Vance said to Walz, “I actually think I agree with you. I think you want to solve this problem, but I don’t think [Vice President] Kamala Harris does.” Vance blamed Harris for increases in illegal immigration and drug and arms trafficking, and for enabling Iran to fund terrorism by waiving U.S. sanctions that had frozen billions in Iranian funds.
In a discussion of the state of American democracy, Walz and Vance had their most direct and contentious exchange. Walz described the events of January 6, 2021, as a threat to democracy for which Trump was responsible. Vance said Harris was responsible for government censorship of information, which was a threat to democracy.
“[Donald Trump] is still saying he didn’t lose the election. I would just ask that. Did he lose the 2020 election?” Walz said.
Vance countered, “Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 COVID situation?”
“That is a damning non-answer,” Walz said.
“It’s a damning non-answer for you to not talk about censorship,” Vance said.
—Lawrence Wilson, Jacob Burg
ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF PORT STRIKE
The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) went on strike at 12:01 a.m. on Oct. 1. If a deal is not reached quickly, the move is expected to deal a heavy blow to the U.S. economy.
The ILA represents 85,000 dock and maritime workers, ranging along the Atlantic coast and into the Gulf of Mexico; this is their first strike since 1977.
The strike comes after the longshoremen rejected a proposal by the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX), offering a nearly 50 percent pay increase, and guarantees against replacing dock workers with machine automation.
ILA president Harold Daggett says the strike will go on “for whatever period of time it takes, to get the wages and protections against automation our ILA members deserve.”
When asked about the potential harm shipping interruptions would have on everyday Americans, Daggett responded that people were never concerned about the port workers “until now when they finally realized the chain is being broken.”
The Impact
Some analysts say if the strike lasts a week, it will cost the economy $3.78 billion, or $540 million per day.
The strike would affect an area that handles around half of the country’s container shipping, totalling one quarter of America’s $3 trillion in international trade.
The strike could also undermine recent measures intended to stimulate growth, like last month’s interest rate cuts by the Fed.
“A port strike would paralyze U.S. trade and raise prices at a time when consumers and businesses are starting to feel relief from inflation,” said Erin McLaughlin, a senior economist at The Conference Board.
Eric Clark, portfolio manager at Accuvest Global Advisors, told The Epoch Times that if the strike lasts “more than a week-ish” it could have a lasting effect on sales into the holiday season.
When added to the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Baltimore bridge collapse, troubles in the Red Sea, and the drought at the Panama Canal, the strike spells bad news for the shipping industry.
It could also have a domino effect on the numerous companies that depend on imported goods.
Alcohol, automobiles, clothing, food, and everyday household goods are likely to be affected. The strike may also impact manufacturing and farming, if necessary parts cannot be shipped.
Some companies got word the strike was coming, and diverted their shipments to the West Coast. This may be a temporary boon for those ports, but may also create a backlog.
But even rerouting is not always an option according to Peter Sand, the chief analyst at ocean freight rate intelligence platform Xeneta.
He says the “vast majority will simply wait outside affected ports until the workers return.”
—Andrew Moran, Stacy Robinson
BOOKMARKS
A week after New York City Mayor Eric Adams was indicted on bribery and corruption charges, one of his top aides has announced his resignation. Timothy Pearson, the mayor’s senior public safety adviser, has not been accused of wrongdoing yet, but investigators have confiscated his cellphone.
Vice President Kamala Harris voiced support for legalizing marijuana this week, saying “we have come to a point where we have to understand that we need to legalize it and stop criminalizing behavior.” This is Harris’ latest shift on the issue; she opposed a California ballot measure legalizing cannabis in 2010, but supported a similar bill in the Senate in 2019.
The United Nations has voted to adopt its “Pact for the Future” framework, which gives the U.N. more influence in global governance. Some are warning that the plan is an erosion of national sovereignty, as it aims to control free speech and energy policy, and to “map out the future of humanity.”
Scientists in the United Kingdom are urging doctors to use a new test when checking for ovarian cancer, which studies say is 96 percent accurate. Dr. Sudha Sundar from the University of Birmingham did warn, however, that the new test’s increased sensitivity could result in more false cancer diagnoses.
Arizona election officials discovered this week that around 218,000 registered voters in that state have shown no proof of citizenship; the number was previously thought to be 97,688. The residents, who all attested to be citizens, will still be able to vote according to a Sept. 20 Arizona Supreme Court ruling.
