In the recent vice-presidential candidate debate, J.D. Vance delivered an incredible performance, overwhelming his opponent, Tim Walz. Even the leftist media is starting to acknowledge this, albeit with much reluctance and frustration. They are saying things like, Well, the defense is good at debates, but in other areas, Tim Walz excels. Nevertheless, they have no choice but to recognize that J.D. Vance performed exceptionally well. The conservative side is currently in a celebratory mood, feeling that they have finally found a successor in conservatism. They now understand why Trump chose this person. The atmosphere can be summarized as, I have to admit I was completely wrong about Vance.

Killer, this guy completely kills it. Walt won the participation trophy, but B won the debate. This is really a statement that pierces the nation. Of course, Walt did well; I think he was far superior to Carrie. The quality of this debate was also really good. However, in the midst of it, Vance showed a higher level of class. This will be my impression. Anyway, now Vance has become an officially recognized eloquent speaker in both camps. How on earth was he able to dominate the debate like this? I’d like to analyze the secret behind it. I will cover two videos, and here’s how we’ll proceed: first, I’ll briefly introduce the context, then show the video, and finally do the analysis. So, let’s start with the first video. Regarding this...

Let me briefly introduce the topic. Currently, the ongoing controversy in the U.S. presidential debates is about biased moderation. The mainstream media is completely left-leaning, and that is a fact. Because of this bias, the moderators, who are supposed to facilitate the debates, are not doing their jobs at all. They keep interrupting, particularly to fact-check the right-wing candidates under the pretense of ensuring accuracy, saying things like, That's not true. This has become a serious issue. So, how did we decide to handle the vice-presidential debate? We agreed that the moderators would not interrupt for fact-checking during the debate. However, during the debate, the moderator violated that rule. In the previous presidential debate, there was a lot of talk about the so-called 3-to-1 debate, where Trump was left alone.

In a debate with two moderators, there were three against one, which created a lot of controversy. Since it was Trump's first time, and the moderators were very overt in their interruptions, he couldn't respond properly. They were attacking him with their three-to-one stance, and Trump was unable to counter their points. However, I think the Republican Party has learned from this experience. This time, the moderators followed the rules and didn't interrupt, but Vance handled it very well. It was truly impressive. I will explain how he managed it with a specific strategy after you watch the video. Much to rule you, fact-checking me, I think it's important to say what's actually going on. So there's an...

There is an application called the CBP One app, where you can go on as an illegal migrant, apply for asylum, or for parole, and be granted legal status at the wave of a hand. This is not just about coming in; there are many who come legally as well. The host is trying to fact-check this statement about immigration, saying that there are many legal immigrants, and then quickly moving on. This is the same tactic that was used in the last presidential debate against Trump. The host says, That's not true, and immediately moves on. Having experienced this once, Vance is now prepared and ready to respond. 

Now, there are two techniques being used here. The first technique is repeatedly calling out names, like Marg, Marg. Vance, although I haven't counted, seems to have called the hosts' names about a hundred times during the debate. Why does he keep calling out names? This is to draw the hosts into the context of the debate.

They do this to draw people in. The reason why the presenters keep intervening is that they feel like they are observers, standing a step back from the situation. They perceive an invisible thick glass wall in front of them. So, it's easy for them to insert themselves into the conversation. This principle is similar to how it's much easier to leave negative comments online than to curse someone to their face. Negative comments are possible because there is a defensive barrier, like a monitor, between us; we are not directly meeting the other person. 

Additionally, while we may not easily curse someone face-to-face, when sitting in the driver's seat of a car, we can easily shout at the other driver. This is because we feel safe, as if we are wearing armor in the car. This kind of psychology is at play.

Because there is a host, they keep interrupting. But when Vance keeps calling my name, it's like, No, you don't have a barrier in front of you; you're here with me. Look into my eyes. You can talk to me like that; you're going to keep interrupting me. This shows that Vance is currently engaging in that psychological maneuver. 

In the military, we learn that if I'm a soldier and I see someone collapsed on the street, I have to help them. But if I need someone else's assistance, I can't just say, Anyone, please help! What do we learn to do instead? I should say, That man in the blue shirt with the green hat, please help me. This way, I draw that person into the situation to help. They are effectively using this psychological tactic; it's quite impressive. Now, what was the second strategy?

After Vance talked about Margaret, he began to present his argument. The first word of that argument was rules. The host was trying to rush through the segment, and Vance seemed to want to move on quickly, but he had to pinpoint the key word in that short amount of time. That word was rules. By inserting the word rules instead of something vague, the hosts, who were about to move on, suddenly paused. They couldn't help but stop. It seemed to me that this was prepared. So, he started by saying, The rule is that you guys shouldn't interrupt. In that very brief moment, he managed to insert a very effective word, which allowed him to pause the discussion. Now, the second video I will show is about the deportation of illegal immigrants.

The issue of illegal immigration in the United States is currently one of the most sensitive topics. The Republican Party is very adamant that we need to prevent illegal entry and that anyone who has entered illegally should be deported. From our perspective, this is a very straightforward stance. However, the Democratic Party argues that deportation is too harsh, and this is the direction they are taking. 

Now, in the debate, the moderator poses a tricky question. Let's first watch how skillfully this is handled, and then I will analyze the specific strategies used. 

Before we talk about deportations, we need to stop the bleeding. We are facing a historic immigration crisis because Harris started and said she wanted to undo all of Trump's border executive actions, massively increasing the asylum fraud that exists in our system, which has opened the floodgates. What this means is that a lot of individuals are coming into our country. I had a mother who struggled with opioid addiction and has gotten clean. I don't want people who are struggling with addiction to be deprived of their second chance because Harris led them into our system.

Communities are at record levels, so you've got to stop the bleeding. You've got to implement Donald Trump's border policies: build the wall and enforce deportations. That gets me to your point, Margaret, about what do we actually do. We have 20 to 25 million illegal aliens who are here in the country. What do we do with them? 

I think the first thing we should do is start with the criminal migrants. About a million of those people have committed some form of crime in addition to crossing the border illegally. I think we should begin deportations for those individuals. Then, we need to make it harder for illegal aliens to undercut the wages of American workers. A lot of people will go home if they can't work for less than minimum wage in our own country. By the way, that would be really good for our workers who want to earn a fair wage for a good day's work. 

The final point, Margaret, is about family separation. Right now in this country, we have 320,000 children that the Department of Homeland Security has effectively lost. Some of them have been sex trafficked; some of them, hopefully, are at home with their families; and some of them have been used as drug trafficking mules. The real family separation policy in this country is, unfortunately, the wide-open southern border.

If you give birth, then the baby is now an American or subject to jus soli. But you have a child staying in America; are you going to kick the mother out? Can you do that? This is the kind of question being asked. Now, whether you answer yes or no, it's a negative. If you say yes, you become a heartless person, someone without blood or tears. If you say no, then you are not sufficiently upholding your principles. You could lose the support of your supporters. In response to this, Vance handled it remarkably well. There are two main strategies here. The first strategy is the image strategy. In this case, the debater was trying to paint Vance with a particular image, portraying him as cold-blooded, truly someone without blood or tears. However, escaping this kind of image is not easy. It’s not simply a matter of saying, No, that's not true.

It's not very effective to just do that. What is more effective is to cover it up with another, more intense image. So, Vance starts talking while mentioning this. There is a specific reason for placing this word at the beginning; it is to draw attention to the image. Next, regarding the bleeding, who caused it? Harris caused it. By opening the borders wide and bringing in a lot of illegal immigrants, she is making our country bleed. After mentioning Harris, Vance talks about Trump. So, the one making this country bleed is Harris, and the challenger who is trying to stop it is Trump. This creates a contrast. It's a fantastic development: first, the image consumes, and then, with Trump as the challenger, he is highlighted. I don't know if this was really prepared in advance or not.

It's incredible; this is how it can be viewed. Now, let's move on to the second strategy. The speaker is drawing the audience's energy towards themselves. What this means is that, upon careful observation, strictly speaking, Vance did not answer the host's question directly. Since it was a trap question from the start, it was only natural to avoid it. However, the way he evaded it was an art form. Ultimately, Vance's response to the UN content was that when asked whether he would separate illegal immigrant children from their parents, he remarked that a more serious separation of children from their parents is already happening. He managed to shift the focus of the conversation. But if he had immediately made that point upon receiving the question, many viewers would have felt that he was dodging the question. However, Vance did not do that.

I didn't plan it. How should I start the speech? Kamala Harris is causing a stir. Now, let’s move on to the first point. What’s the second one? It’s about deporting criminals. That’s the second point. Then, the third topic comes up. We talked about the separation of children and parents, but what's happening elsewhere is more important. It's that simple. If we had started with the third item, it would have been quite ineffective, but by discussing the first and second points, which are things everyone has to agree on, it becomes compelling. Kamala Harris created an open board, and honestly, that's a valid point that everyone can relate to. The second statement is about deporting criminals. Who wouldn’t agree with that? As the audience listens to the first and second points, they realize that what JD Vance is saying is quite reasonable.

It is set up in such a way that one cannot help but predict it will be like that. After sufficiently draining the energy, I then talk about the third point. Many people forget whether Vance answered correctly or at least feel that it was an acceptable response. It makes the head and heart operate separately. This is truly a sophisticated strategy, and I want to evaluate that he skillfully avoided this trap question. It was really impressive. I personally found it so interesting; I love analyzing language strategies. I was moved and inspired by Vance's excellence. I want to work harder and use this tool of language artistically like that. Of course, behind Vance, there are many strategists and debate preparation teams who have worked hard.

I think he must have done it, but despite that, I feel that person is truly remarkable for practicing it well. I've come to realize this a lot and I have a strong desire to learn from him. After reading the book Hillbilly Elegy, I mentioned that I started to like Benz as a person, but now I have more faith in him as a politician. I need to verify various other influences, but I feel that he at least has the potential to run for president in the future. It seems like he will challenge that, and I think he would be fine. I have the impression that he has made a strong enough impression. He is only four years old, so there is a lot to look forward to. Not just Jade Benz, but also Vivek Ramaswamy, who is currently one of the standout young conservative politicians. There are so many talented individuals in American conservatism, which is quite enviable.

I hope that in the future, more talented individuals will emerge in our country, leading to a more vibrant and dynamic political landscape. Anyway, I will wrap up today's discussion here, and I look forward to sharing more valuable content next time. Thank you.

[부통령 토론 리뷰] JD 밴스, 트럼프의 선택이 옳았음을 증명하다

[부통령 토론 리뷰] JD 밴스, 트럼프의 선택이 옳았음을 증명하다