In his brilliant book “Memoirs of a Superfluous Man”, the author Albert Jay Nock wrote of the literary and cultural application of Gresham’s Law — the economic theorem dealing with the nature of currency which informs us bad money drives out good money. In the literary application, Nock explains as a greater percentage of the population of a society becomes literate, there is a proportionate reduction in the quality of what is written. In the 1850s roughly 20% of the American population was literate; today the number is around 90%. In that time we have gone from the Lincoln-Douglas debate to whatever the hell that was we saw a couple of weeks ago between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. Nock may have been on to something.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

So it was something of an unexpected relief to watch Tuesday’s vice-presidential debate between Ohio U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. No, it was not anywhere near the level of Lincoln-Douglas — I fear that level of intellectual discourse has dipped well below the horizon — but at least it was a notch or two above what we have been getting accustomed to.

Concerning the debate, a few observations:

1. By current standards, it was a very civil exchange. Both candidates exhibited a degree of civility and poise lacking in recent performances. There was none (well, very little) of the hyperbole and rancor that many despairingly (or excitedly) expected. This, in the balance, is a good thing.

2. Vance won, as clearly and objectively as Harris won her performance against Trump. What’s more, he did so not only because he exceeded the low expectations set for him by the media (and his own missteps along the way), nor due soley to his polish and rhetorical skill, but on substance. Vance was simply better prepared, more in command of the issues, and more able to outline his arguments than Walz. Vance had the tougher job of the evening; not only did he have to make the case for Donald Trump, who routinely makes that job more difficult than it should be, but he had to overcome the image that preceded him onto the debate stage. He did his job. He managed to redefine himself and came across as knowledgeable, polished, even genial at times — the antithesis of Trump.

Walz, on the other hand, did neither himself nor his running mate any particular favors. He appeared overwhelmed much of the evening, confused at times, and unsure — even about bills he signed into law. His worst moment came when pressed about his statement he was in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square massacre (he was not). It took a while, and the moderator asking for a second time, before he came around to saying he misspoke — but in the process he referred to himself as a “knucklehead.” I would bet a great deal that term will enter the popular political lexicon in short order.

3. If anything, there was too much agreement on certain issues, particularly on trade policy. Both candidates are unrepentant protectionists. It leaves one to wonder who, in the foreseeable future, will carry the banner for economic clarity, if the GOP has now succumbed to economic superstition? 

4. Vance was not perfect — his answer on the question of the 2020 election and Jan. 6, 2021 was unsatisfactory. Granted, he is in a tough position on that score, and I suppose he handled as well as could be expected, under the conditions he accepted when agreeing to be Trump’s No. 2. Still, it would have been gratifying to hear him set the record straight once and for all.

5. There was lamentably little time given to foreign policy and national security, aside from the question at the beginning on the candidates’ positions on supporting Israel in punching back at Iran, a question that seemed to be asked simply out of grudging concession to the news of the day. On this, Vance again provided the better answer, juxtaposed with Walz’s meandering deflections. But there was nothing on China, Taiwan, Ukraine, NATO, or the state of America’s military readiness. That is a shame, and CBS did the American people a disservice by dodging those topics.

6. It’s a rather concrete axiom that presidential debates matter little, and VP debates even less, and that probably holds. But this is not a typical election year, and axioms have been uprooted all over the place. The first presidential debate was instrumental in getting Joe Biden displaced from the candidacy. This one could have an outsized effect as well.

7. Finally, Vance has now fully positioned himself as the face and voice of the new populist GOP, in the running for 2028 regardless of how this November goes. Vance made the case for Trump far better than Trump has, and is now, for better or worse, the heir apparent of the GOP. That being so, may he see the light on trade, debt and foreign policy sooner rather than later.

Kelly Sloan is a political and public affairs consultant and a recovering journalist based in Denver.