Moderation and common sense mark the only debate between the US vice-presidential candidates

If American politics were what was seen last night in the first and only vice-presidential debate to be held in this campaign, the extremism and polarization that is experienced in the times of Donald Trump would not exist. His second, Ohio Senator JD Vance, 40, put aside rumors about dogs and cats to offer a sensible and moderate image that appeals to undecided voters looking for change. The same change promised by his rival, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, 60, in the person of Vice President Kamala Harris, despite having been in government for three years.

It was a refreshing break of civility in a radicalized election campaign that has been marred by two assassination attempts. According to the debate rules, the microphones were open, but the candidates rarely interrupted each other and the moderators only had to close them once. Both said they enjoyed a dialogue of ideas and policy contrasts, often agreeing, even by omission. Neither wanted to commit to answering whether they would support or oppose a preemptive Israeli strike on Iran if they were in the 'Situation Room,' where Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were yesterday coordinating Israel's defense.

The two men accompanying them as vice presidents on the November 5 ballots had the mission of presenting and defending their policies and dismantling the inconsistencies of the opponent. Vance sought to connect all the country's major problems to illegal immigrants, whom Trump has promised to deport "massively." Yesterday he estimated this population at "20 or 25 million," proposing to start with the estimated million who have committed some type of crime besides crossing the border illegally. "I think if you start deporting these guys, it will be harder for illegal immigrants to undermine American workers' wages," he concluded.

His rival, nervous in the first part where he frequently hesitated and mixed words, even confusing Israel with Iran and saying he had been "friends with school shooters." But he grew as the debate advanced without personal attacks or tricks, turning into an exposition of ideas more suited to an old high school teacher who seemed more comfortable in the sincerity of his ideas. His most eloquent responses came on topics he believes in, such as abortion rights, healthcare reform, or respect for democratic norms.

Walz did not allow Vance to escape with the fallacy that Trump had saved Obama's healthcare reform from its own regulatory failures, nor did he let himself be pigeonholed as pro-abortion. "We are pro-women; we trust them and defend their freedom to make decisions," he argued. That is the winning card of the Democratic Party's candidacy, which will take advantage of women's mobilization in referendums on abortion rights that some states will hold alongside the general elections. Trump's Republican candidacy walks a delicate balance not to lose the women it claims to protect or the Christian right that trusts him to finish dismantling reproductive rights.

His insistence on linking all the country's woes to illegal immigrants—scapegoats for economic woes and even housing shortages—reflects national concern about the porous southern border. Yesterday, Trump's running mate was in favor of clean air, which he intends to improve by increasing national natural gas production. Where he did not compromise, knowing he was being watched by his boss, was acknowledging that Trump had lost the previous election, although he managed to avoid a direct response. However, he did accept something fundamental that anguishes millions of Americans. "If what we mean is that we need to respect election results, I agree," committed Ohio Senator.

His rival, a former high school football coach from Minnesota—the rural Midwestern state he mentioned 31 times—challenged him to shake hands when results come in on November 5 and 'work with the winner.' With all their civic approaches, it was there at the climax of the debate where Walz managed to draw the line that separates them. "Will you stand up? Will you uphold your oath of office even if your president does not?" he challenged. "That is where America has a clear choice in this election: between who will honor democracy and who will honor Donald Trump," he concluded.