J.D. Vance. Taken by Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
In a typical academic setting, debates must revolve around facts. We expect debaters to come prepared with evidence, logical statements, and well-reasoned conclusions. Anything else is unnecessary and distracting. Politics, by contrast, often requires more than straightforward argumentation. In a political setting, even the most compelling logic is typically unsuccessful if it is not accompanied by emotion.
J.D. Vance clearly understood the emotional aspect of politics during his October 1 Vice Presidential debate with Tim Walz. While Vance clearly knew his facts and made compelling arguments, he also used emotional appeals to accomplish his objective. He put his rhetorical skills on full display in an exchange with Walz about abortion.
After rebuffing the outlandish accusation that he and Trump want to set up a national pregnancy registry he said “And, you know, I grew up in a working class family in a neighborhood where I knew a lot of young women who had unplanned pregnancies and decided to terminate those pregnancies because they feel like they didn’t have any other options. And, you know, one of them is actually very dear to me. And I know she’s watching tonight, and I love you. And she told me something a couple years ago that she felt like if she hadn’t had that abortion, that it would have destroyed her life because she was in an abusive relationship. And I think that what I take from that, as a Republican who proudly wants to protect innocent life in this country, who proudly wants to protect the vulnerable is that my party, we’ve got to do so much better of a job at earning the American People’s trust back on this issue where they frankly just don’t trust us. And I think that’s one of the things that Donald Trump and I are endeavoring to do.”
While delivering these anecdotal remarks Vance became visibly emotional. He made clear that he cares deeply about the issue and understands the suffering of those who make such heart-wrenching decisions.
Some conservatives were disappointed that Vance seemed so apologetically pro-life. Indeed, his arguments were markedly less pro-life than those of Republican candidates in the past. His goal, however, was not to demonstrate his pro-life bona fides on stage. Rather, he was trying to win over a demographic that is typically hostile to the Trump camp: suburban women. In a close and short election season, this required the use of emotion.
The entire American population, including women, have been fed emotional left wing arguments about the necessity of abortion for decades. These arguments never seek to logically refute pro-life ideas but often point to exceptional cases or resort to name-calling.
It is for this reason that Vance’s use of emotion was so effective. Rather than engaging with unreasonable people, he sought to counter them by using their own currency. This was effective because, even at an emotional level, the pro-life side is inherently more compelling. Encouraging women to carry their baby to term is much more noble than lauding abortion as a fundamental human right. As little as 30 years ago even Bill Clinton was forced to treat abortion as a necessary evil.
Although it is irresponsible for politicians to rely solely on emotion, effective rhetoric is necessary in the political arena. Good ideas need to be backed up by pathos. Last week J.D. Vance put on a debate masterclass. He showed his listeners how one can avoid alienating undecided voters while refusing to concede certain principles. Although the election is still a month away Vance’s masterful use of emotion may be enough to put Trump over the finish line.
