One of the most important qualities Americans look for in a President is temperament, an intangible ability to project confidence, optimism, character strength, a reliable sense of self, strong values, and a certain emotional maturity. In short, do we think a person passes the “Commander-in-Chief” test? FDR, Reagan, Kennedy, Truman are generally judged by historians to have had the ‘right’ blend of these elements, and therefore, possessed the appropriate temperament.
On October 4th Mike Pence, Donald Trump’s running mate, turned in a debate performance that was judged by commentators and voters polled to have appeared more presidential than the actual candidate to become president.
That both men adopted different tones was evident from the very beginning of their respective debates. On Sept. 26th, during his presidential debate with Hillary Clinton, Trump opened his remarks with a dire warning that “Our jobs are fleeing the country. They are going to Mexico.” This was the debating equivalent of rushing out of one’s corner and trying to land a wild haymaker on the other boxer.
Pence had a different approach. He thanked the moderator, the debate’s host university, the Commission on Presidential Debates, then expressed his humility to be on the stage in sight of his family. Then he said, “And, senator Kaine, it’s an honor to be here with you, as well.”
Civility. In that moment, one realized that play time was over. This was a professional showing the viewers how things should have been done.
Though this initial politeness would soon devolve to a flurry of constant interruptions from an over caffeinated Kaine and Reagan-style head shakes from himself, the former congressman and Indiana governor maintained a demeanour so markedly different from Trump’s that it managed to gloss potential controversial policy stances. During the debate, he even openly professed his respect for Kaine’s (who is Catholic) personal pro-life and religious view
Trump’s erratic and unpolished performance (if one could call it that) had set the expectations bar low. However, from this perspective, Pence looked far more presidential than the actual candidate to become president. In fact, he showed he had temperament.
While managing to appeal to the same subsurface anxieties on immigration, terrorism, race that Trump did, by moderating the occasional outlandish promises and assertions his nominal boss espoused: If you don’t have borders you don’t have a country; European Islamic radicalization in Europe is warning that we shouldn’t allow refugees from Syria into the US; the real problem with race relations in America is a media-driven liberal bias against police officers…
This kind of milder approach has its limits: it jettisons some of the things that make Trump supporters so fanatical about the mogul’s candidacy. Of course, some of Trump’s appeal is irreproducible —Pence does not have the kind of reality star celebrity the Donald has - but a post-Trump GOP could try to ape the “anti-PC” boldness with which Trump expresses distrust and mistrust.
Pence didn’t lay out a brand of “alt-right” conservatism. Neither did he return to a more establishment Eisenhower, Ford or Bush (George – President # 41) pre-Trump conservatism. There was also in his remarks a rejection of the overly optimistic quasi-Obama “post-racial”/ ”Big Tent” message (i.e. from Rubio, Bush – Jeb) that sought to diminish any discussion of racial difference either. Pence highlighted the same issues as Trump — threats from abroad and within — and the same priorities in addressing them. By doing so, albeit in far more dulcet tones, this represents a pronounced shift from the doctrinaire conservatism of the last decade or two, with its focus on fiscal issues and sexual morality.
This is law-and-order conservatism of the ‘Silent Majority’ kind, one in which support for “law enforcement” automatically wins a policy argument in the same way support for “the troops” did in Bush (George W) – era neo-conservatism. While It’s not quite the slightly unhinged model of Trump’s biggest fans, it’s has appeal for a lot of people who feel a little bit uneasy about where their country might be going. What Pence is betting on is that there are more of those people than Trump’s current support may admit and that he can tap into people’s frustrations at being told all their lives that racism is a horrible thing and then be accused of being racist.
There were also moments when Pence reminded one of Neo from the ‘Matrix’ trilogy using “bullet time” to dodge bullets. This was very noticeable whenever he was called upon to defend or justify Trump’s comments. When Kaine demanded that Pence defend Trump’s secrecy on his taxes, Pence opined about how low taxes are good for economic growth; when Kaine offered an extended list of Trump insults that he said he couldn’t believe Pence would even try to defend, Pence didn’t seek to rebut them — he changed the subject and then sought to deflect by hitting back at Clinton.
Kaine’s most effective moment came when he launched a powerful, devastating foreign policy attack on Trump so damning that Pence simply could or would not defend against it. Instead, he dodged by stating that Kaine’s argument, “had a lot of creative lines in it.”
Neither did Pence not rise to the bait and take up Kaine’s challenge to defend Trump’s obvious affection for Putin, dislike of NATO, or willingness to entertain nuclear proliferation. He simply shrugged off the entire reality of Trump’s 2016 campaign and slammed Obama, Clinton, and Kaine as soft on Russia — akin to the foreign policy attacks of John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012.
He then pivoted into a generic conservative attack on Obama’s foreign policy. And while the substance of the critique is somewhat unfair to the president, it’s not ludicrous as the administration’s attempted withdrawal from Iraq pretty clearly has not worked out nearly as well as it hoped. Pence also slammed the Clinton foundation for its muddy connections to the State Department and access to the former secretary of state.
Pence proved he could launch practiced, disciplined, targeted attacks on Hillary Clinton’s positions, tying her to Obama’s greatest policy oversights or missteps, and throwing in a dash of Bill Clinton’s checkered record — assaults that Trump initiated in the first debate, but hadn’t really prosecuted with any particular focus.
Many pundits (and some anonymous ‘insiders’) have suggested Pence used this debate to set up his own candidacy for 2020, and many more have indicated their wish for the top and bottom halves of the Republican ticket to be inverted. Neither is happening, for the moment. If nothing else, the debate displayed that Trump has enough positive judgement to select Mike Pence as his running mate. The argument goes: if he had that judgement to do that, he may have some more, hidden away somewhere.
In the final analysis, if and when Donald Trump is defeated, Republicans will embark on a search for their next nominee. When they do, they will see the Usual Suspects – Cruz, Kasich, Rubio (and probably the most formidable candidate, current House Speaker Paul Ryan) as well as Mike Pence, who doesn’t quite have the pizzazz or star quality of a Donald Trump, but one with a proper temperament - the kind that would allow him to win and govern.