Vance vs. Walz: Should the Government “Do Something”?

by
Jonathan Newman
My articles My booksMy videos
Follow on:

In the final stretch of any presidential campaign, the goal is to attract any remaining undecided voters. This usually means that candidates moderate and soften their messaging, especially in comparison to the proposals and rhetoric used to attain the nomination of their respective parties earlier in the campaign. This was on full display in last night’s vice-presidential debate between J.D. Vance and Tim Walz.

I also want to discuss a few important things that weren’t said on the debate stage last night, like whether the government should be involved at all in the areas discussed, the true cause of price inflation, the war in Ukraine, and the momentous political realignment signified by Dick Cheney and other neocons endorsing the Harris-Walz ticket.

Bipartisanship and “we gotta do something”

Moderation was the name of the game last night. Walz, for example, emphasized that he is a hunter and gun owner, with no intention to violate the second amendment. On the same issue, Vance said, “we’ve got to have some common-sense bipartisan solutions” regarding gun violence. Walz brought up his bipartisan bona fides in an awkward response to a question about his false statements regarding his whereabouts during the Tiananmen Square massacre. Vance backpedaled his prior positions regarding a national ban on abortion.

It’s difficult to evaluate the credibility and feasibility of presidential campaign promises for a few reasons. Politicians know that they can get away with all sorts of promises during campaigns because any failure to enact what they promised can be chalked up to political roadblocks once they are in office. Also, many voters are extremely shortsighted, meaning that the issues and events that are at the top of their minds in the few weeks leading up to the election are not likely to persist throughout the four years of a presidential administration. To get elected and maintain approval over the long-term, politicians simply need to ride the short-lived waves of opinion and look like they are “doing something” during crises.

It’s unfortunate that these are the political incentives because “moderate” policies, bipartisanship, and “doing something” are anathema to liberty and limited government. Some of the worst things that governments do have broad bipartisan support. “Doing something” in a crisis (real or perceived) is what drives the ratchet effect of government growth. And, as Ron Paul said, “We suffer from too much bipartisanship when it comes to the welfare-warfare state.”

What wasn’t said: The role of government

I shouldn’t have been surprised by this, but one thing that struck me during the debate was the complete lack of any utterance regarding the government’s role in managing any given area. On every topic, both candidates seemed to take as given that the government should be involved, should be spending, should be planning, should be “doing something.”

The candidates’ remarks on the topic of paid family leave and childcare affordability is a good example of this. Walz unsurprisingly touted his campaign’s promise to enact a national paid leave program. He said the government should address both the demand side and the supply side of childcare: “we have to make it easier for folks to be able to get into that business and then to make sure that folks are able to pay for that.”

The moderators turned to Vance, who began his allotted time by saying, “I think there is a bipartisan solution here.” Later, he said, “we should have a family care model that makes choice possible,” and that the current federal programs need reforming. Vance said, “we’re going to be able to provide paid family leave [and] childcare options that are viable and workable for a lot of American families.” There was no mention at all of whether the government ought to be involved in employers’ paid family leave offerings or in childcare.

What wasn’t said: The true cause of price inflation

Another thing that was strikingly absent from the debate was the true cause of price inflation. A moderator brought up the topic by saying, “let’s turn now to the top contributor to inflation: the high cost of housing and rent.” Walz’s response was filled with ideas for even more government intervention, including his campaign’s proposal to give $25,000 to some homebuyers. Vance’s response centered around the effect of illegal immigration on the demand for housing and proposed selling off federal lands (a great idea). While Vance’s remarks certainly made more sense than Walz’s, neither side addressed the money supply expanding by trillions of dollars coupled with decades of artificially low interest rates, and the effect that this has had on price inflation and the demand for housing, resulting in a true housing affordability problem.

The United States will continue to suffer boom-bust cycles, civilization-crushing inflation, and fragile financial institutions as long as the Federal Reserve is around. The only time the Federal Reserve was mentioned last night was when a couple Fed studies were referenced regarding the cost of housing and childcare.

What wasn’t said: The war in Ukraine

The moderators did not ask a single question about the proxy war between the U.S. and Russia in Ukraine. Given that the U.S. has squandered at least $175 billion on this dangerous quagmire so far, and that the current administration seems intent on escalation, you would think that something would be said about it.

What wasn’t said: “You can have Dick Cheney”

Amazingly, both Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, in their respective debates, bragged about getting Dick Cheney’s endorsement. It’s true that Dick Cheney, all the other high-profile war-hungry neocons, and two hundred other Republicans from the staffs of George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, and John McCain have “defected” and endorsed the Harris-Walz ticket. In the recent presidential debate, Harris referred to “the late great” McCain with admiration. Last night, Walz said McCain was courageous for saving Obamacare.

It’s clear that we are in the middle or final stages of a political realignment. This realignment is the result of almost a century of debate and maneuvering between the Old Right, represented by anti-war and anti-New Deal authors like Albert Jay Nock, Garet Garret, Robert Taft, and Frank Chodorov, and the New Right, represented by The National Review and, later, the neoconservatives. Murray Rothbard, who had an insider’s view, wrote a great history of the mid-20th century conservative movement in The Betrayal of the American Right.

The rise of the “America First” conservatives in the Republican Party has been a welcome change from the perspective of those who, like Rothbard, admire the anti-war, pro-liberty Old Right. While the self-identified America First faction is imperfect and a mixed bag, it’s wonderful that they reject the neocon’s decades-long stranglehold on the Republican Party. The expulsion of the neocons should be celebrated by modern Old Rightists, and the Democrats should be ashamed that they are now politically aligned with the likes of Cheney.

Vance, however, didn’t acknowledge it. Vance could have cemented this realignment and triggered the Left into some much-needed introspection by responding to Walz with a simple insult: “You can have Dick Cheney.”