Tim Walz as VP Choice: Image vs. Policies

 

I have gotten some feedback in which arguments were made extolling Tim Walz as Kamala Harris’ VP choice. I have listened, and understand why, as a person and even as a politician, he is exemplary. However, I still am not convinced Walz was the best choice for a Vice President candidate.

 As much as I appreciate his background as a teacher, military officer, and governor, as well as his  social service bent, I think Harris would be better served with a younger, more articulate running mate, such as Pete Buttigieg. I realize that Buttigieg is not electable, as I have been reminded, due to his being gay, which is unfortunate. In the future, when younger Americans have a bit more presence in day-to-day politics, one’s sexual orientation will not be such a hindrance to being elected.

 In today’s fast-paced world of sound bites and personality politics, voters often take short cuts in voting. Some study a candidate’s policy proposals; however, most rely on other factors to make their voting choices. The reason I feel strongly that Tim Walz is not an ideal choice is that ever since the 1960 presidential debate between Kennedy and Nixon, policies have given way to image as far as electability. The hierarchy of voting preference goes like this: Party, Person, Policy - in that order, because most people vote Party first because it represents their tribe, thinking that their tribe will best represent their interests (https://www.quora.com/Do-voters-care-much-more-about-the-personality-of-the-person-they-vote-for-or-about-the-policies-of-the-person-they-vote-for).

 A candidate’s personality comes second in voting preference, while their policies come in dead last.  Therefore, if Harris had chosen a younger, more photogenic running mate, regardless of her/his policies and background, she would have made a better choice, in my opinion. For example, in the famous Kennedy/Nixon debate (which I watched on TV as a child), Kennedy looked youthful, photogenic, and energetic, while Nixon looked pale and tired, with a five o’clock shadow beard. Nixon’s running mate, Henry Cabot Lodge, watched the debate on TV, and lamented that Nixon had lost the election for the Republicans. Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy’s running mate, who heard the debate on the radio, thought Kennedy had lost the debate. Presidential debates became an election fixture in 1980, after the GOP challenger, Ronald Reagan, used a strong debate performance just a week before the election to win by a comfortable margin over Carter.  (https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-debate-that-changed-the-world-of-politics).

 Image trumps the person and their policies. Donald Trump is a master at crafting an image, and in so doing has merged image and personality, the main focus of his campaign. Who knows what his policies really are?  If Harris and Walz rely on standard debate rhetoric, they may lose the debate, even if they would win the debate on the strength of content and arguments. I have no doubt that Harris will win the debate over Trump, though it could be close, due to Trump’s personality cult. I suggest that Walz dye his hair, get a face lift, and practice crafting his best television image. ( Not serious here. Just making a  point.) Of course, Walz is debating J. D. Vance, who may be younger with a more palatable TV image. No matter what Vance says, his image is more youthful and photogenic than Walz’s image. However, Vance’s personality may do him in. Personality and image seem inseparable on our current political horizon.