Graphic by Evelyn Kim ’25/The Choate News
By Andy Stahlman ’26 Opinions Writer
In both the presidential debate on September 10 and the vice-presidential debate on October 1, we witnessed two heated discussions with distinct contents but similar patterns. Former President Donald Trump P’00 relies on feeding fear and anger. On the contrary, the Democrats have consistently shown in their debate performances that the best way to fight Trump’s fear-driven approach is to inspire hope.
Following the vice presidential debate, it was clear that Republican vice presidential candidate Ohio Senator JD Vance is highly conservative and supports policies that will severely harm American citizens. Still, he appeared to be more genuine than Trump in his recent public appearances. In a touching moment of human empathy after Democratic vice presidential candidate and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz said his son witnessed a shooting at a community center, Vance said, “Tim, first of all, I didn’t know that your 17-year-old witnessed a shooting, and I’m sorry about that.”
This debate contained significantly more policy talk, something most people felt was missing from the presidential debate. Despite these positives, we saw the Trump cult mentality polluting the debate, particularly when Vance was unable to give a concrete answer on whether Trump lost the 2020 election. In response, Walz asked during the debate, “Who’s going to honor that democracy, and who’s going to honor Donald Trump?” This quote sums up the problem with Vance: he adapts to exactly what Trump needs him to be, even if it strays from what’s needed from a Vice President.
Moreover, this debate was never about the vice presidents; it was always about Trump. Trump as a figure has evolved beyond just being a typical candidate; instead, he represents a movement that doesn’t have an end goal. The “Make America Great Again” movement is a population that must to change how they interact with politics. Trump can no longer rely on attacking President Joe Biden’s age; instead, he must actually fight back against a campaign riding on building momentum. However, this “fighting back” will become much more strenuous now that Harris has figured out exactly how to push Trump over the edge. In Trump’s infamous quote from the presidential debate, “In Springfield, they are eating the dogs. The people that came in, they are eating the cats,” there is a blatant use of intense imagery to spark fear. In response, Harris did something that made her more relatable than any organized argument could have ever done; she made the same face millions of Americans made, wincing at the extraordinarily outrageous statement. Trump’s web of lies is unraveling, revealing a less-than-pretty truth.
Overall, these two debates gave us a better glimpse into the Republican ticket than the Democratic one, but this is of little surprise. Trump has been the looming specter of politics from the early days of the Republican primary and this election has been about him since then. With the help of Harris identifying and pushing on Trump’s pressure points and Walz hitting strongly on the main point of democracy, the Democrats have proven that Trump is little more than a fearmonger. To use Vance’s own words from when he was a “never Trump-er” back in a 2016 interview: “One of the biggest drivers of Trump support, and one of the things that’s most predictive of Trump support, is that you express cynicism about the future.” Harris has taken advantage of this remark and used the vital tool of hope in the face of adversity.
