Chicago: J.D. Vance was particularly effective in putting forward some of the much-maligned GOP policies more clearly and compassionately than most GOP politicians, especially Donald Trump.
THE VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
After a series of acrimonious, senile, juvenile, and narcissistic exchanges on live T.V. in the name of “debate,” what we witnessed on Tuesday night’s running-mate’s (vice presidential) debate was nothing short of surreal. It was civil and substantive, considering the low we have hit over the past few years, which was sone pe suhaga. The only thing better would have been to let the two candidates debate without those biased, fact-checking debate moderators.
Both candidates—J.D. Vance and Tim Walz—put on a civil and much-informed show than their running mates at the top of the ticket. Vice President Harris’ running mate, Tim Walz, is the two-time governor of Minnesota and has a history in the U.S. Congress. J.D. Vance, former President Donald Trump’s running mate, is a senator from Ohio and a former venture capitalist.
This column has previously discussed the inefficacy of live TV debates at some length. To that end, vice presidential debates also only matter a little in swinging voters’ opinions in a presidential election. However, given how tight the race has been in the last few election cycles—about 40,000 votes in a few swing states in 2020—the prospect of winning a perceived undecided voter in a highly polarized political landscape is appealing. On that front, one must concede that the two vice presidential candidates outperformed their presidential counterparts in substance and delivery.
Mr Vance was particularly effective in putting forward some of the much-maligned—most of it unfairly by the Democrat-aligned US corporate media—GOP policies more clearly and compassionately than most GOP politicians, especially Mr Trump. He acknowledged that the GOP has to win the trust of Americans on such contentious issues as abortion.
The Democrats and the U.S. media have deliberately propagated the false claim that Mr Trump would enact a federal ban on abortions. In declaring Roe v. Wade (the abortion law) unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court dismantled the prevailing judicial activism and overreach. It made it possible for laws on abortion to be enacted within the legislative framework. Mr Vance conceded the fact that benefiting from the overthrow of Roe v. Wade, his home state of Ohio was able to frame a law on abortion opposite of his viewpoint.
Mr Vance and the GOP are acutely aware of their vulnerability on the issue of abortion, hence their reconciliatory tone. “Suburban women were instrumental in stopping the Red wave of 2022 [midterm elections],” said Anang Mittal, a GOP communications strategist, in an interview with this author. The Roe v. Wade decision of the Supreme Court was still fresh on people’s minds. However, “four years of Biden-Harris administration’s mismanagement of the country,” according to Mittal, “have left many, [including women] disillusioned… and inflation and immigration are the larger concerns that don’t help Harris.”
On the other hand, the Democrat position is of restoration of Roe v. Wade. As the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal writes, “Mr Walz offered the restoration of Roe v. Wade in a national law as the only possible answer.” The Board also reminds us that the law Mr Walz signed as Minnesota governor “allows abortion at any stage in pregnancy if a doctor approves.”
Mr Vance also drew attention to the issue of free speech. The free speech guarantee under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is uniquely American. The amendment provides citizens with a firewall from the government concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. According to legal scholar Jonathan Turley, the Biden-Harris administration “has proved to be the most anti-free speech administration in two centuries.”
Once again, the debate wasn’t between two vice presidential candidates alone. The two CBS anchors—Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan—were very much part of it. According to the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal, the anchors “predictably focused on the priorities of Democrats: childcare, healthcare, abortion, gun control, climate change, democracy and Jan 6.”
Also, the war in Ukraine did not figure at all in the debate despite the U.S. sending tens of billions of dollars in aid and equipment with a commitment to support Ukraine for as long as it takes. The pro-Hamas protests that engulfed the elite U.S. campuses earlier were also missing from the conversation.
USCIRF MADNESS
The annual reports of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), of late, have become a nuisance and an irritant in the US-India relationship. With the stated mission to “advance international freedom of religion or belief, by independently assessing and unflinchingly confronting threats to this fundamental right,” the Commission is a U.S. federal government entity established by the U.S. Congress. The International Religious Freedom Act (1998) provides for ten members. The United States President appoints three commissioners, and the U.S. Senate and the House appoint three each. The Ambassador-at-large for International Religious Freedom serves as a non-voting ex officio member.
The latest USCIRF report—an unusual mid-year report—has a section on India’s “collapsing religious freedom conditions” and recommends the U.S. Department of State to designate India a “Country of Particular Concern.” However, significant problems exist with the composition of the Commission and the methodology used in preparing these reports. Most of its commissioners belong to the world’s powerful majority religions with no representation from non-Abrahamic faiths, including Hinduism. Conceptually, the USCIRF assumption that all religions have similar epistemological and ontological viewpoints is also problematic.
“The USCIRF is yet another political arm of the U.S., wasting millions of dollars each year to monitor so-called religious freedom around the world, whereas what it does is to ensure that the world’s monopolist, supremacist, and violent faiths can continue their proselytism efforts undermining the faiths and cultures on the non-Abrahamic faiths,” said Ramesh Rao in an email interview.
“USCIRF has even subcontracted some of the work to terrorist sympathizers as in the case of a report by Pakistan-born Iqtidar Cheema, director of the Institute for Leadership and Community Development, in Birmingham, England, on religious freedom in India. Cheema has long supported Pakistan’s proxy war against India.” Rao is a professor of communication at Columbus State University in Georgia, USA.
Mittal calls USCIRF a “hollowed out” institution. Their methodology includes talking to “clueless reporters and rent-seeking investors.” Religious violence in India is minuscule, said Mittal, considering its population size of 1.4 billion people. “If you are going to point to a guy in a country of 1.4 billion, Indians can point to things too.”
HINDUS FOR AMERICA FIRST
The recent formation of the Hindus for America First Political Action Committee (PAC) is the most unambiguous indication that Indian Americans, known for their steadfast loyalties to the Democrat Party, may finally be looking to diversify their electoral portfolio. With a Trishula—a traditional Hindu weapon most commonly associated with Bhagwan Shiva—tucked under an American Eagle’s claw, the PAC has endorsed the candidacy of the Republican candidate, former president Donald Trump.
According to its founder and chairman, Utsav Sanduja, the PAC is active in some battleground states, such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, etc., to move as many Hindu voters away from the Democrat Party’s stranglehold as possible.
Sanduja concedes that the task is not easy. There is a growing disenchantment from the Democrat Party among Hindu Americans because of their support for the “caste” bills, attacks on Hindu temples, and the rhetoric against the Hindutva. However, Trump and GOP supporters chose to remain silent, said Sanduja, fearful of social, professional, and political retribution.
Avatans Kumar is a Chicago-based award-winning columnist.