MSNBC has once again brought the topic of “mansplaining” to the forefront, this time claiming it reared its ugly head during the recent vice-presidential debate between Republican Sen. JD Vance and Democratic Gov. Tim Walz. Television personalities Rachel Maddow and Nicolle Wallace didn’t waste any time trying to label Vance’s assertive explanations as condescending, arguing that he dared to explain immigration topics that Walz allegedly should have been able to decipher without Vance’s input. Had this been a game of chess, Vance certainly made a bold move; too bad he didn’t checkmate the nitpicking pundits at MSNBC in the process.
Wallace seemed particularly amused by the moderators’ power to mute, noting that Vance nearly crossed the line between robust debate and “mansplaining.” It appears that for Wallace, attempting to inform someone on the pressing issue of illegal immigration is akin to pulling a kindergarten teacher’s hair in class. Instead of focusing on the weight of the arguments being made, Wallace contends the real crime here was that Vance, a man, was willing to articulate dissenting views. In today’s political theater, it seems having confidence and knowledge can be turned into grounds for public ridicule, especially when you’re not playing for the leftist team.
Um do you understand you just said Tim Walz isn't a real man? I mean, we all agree, but surprised to hear you say it.
— TruthHammer4EVA (@TruthHammer4EVA) October 2, 2024
Maddow joined the chorus by declaring that Vance was not only misguided but also outright lying about the status of immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. The implication here is straightforward: if you’re a Republican, your facts don’t matter — at least not in the hallowed halls of MSNBC where truth appears to be a moving target. Vance’s law-based rationale was portrayed as an egregious faux pas, as if common sense and critical thought were outlawed inside the confines of the debate stage.
While they were busy dissecting Vance’s words, one can only wonder if Maddow, Wallace, and their cohorts even considered the content of the debates that took place during the evening. Instead of applauding an open discourse on a major policy issue, MSNBC seemed more comfortable critiquing the “style” over “substance”, which is a shocker coming from a network notorious for its own kind of selective storytelling. It’s as if the sheer act of a Republican engaging in dialogue about serious topics is an unforgiveable sin against the feminist high priests of the media.
It seems that for certain liberals, debate has become less about the pressing matters at hand and more about who is allowed to speak and how. If a man states an opinion or tries to clarify facts, it can immediately be labeled as dismissive, regardless of the context. It’s a peculiar brand of politics where facts and debates are overshadowed by a narrative that more closely resembles a soap opera than anything resembling a serious discussion on national issues. In the end, the real beneficiaries of this narrative strategy are those who favor a divisive, clouded discussion over clear, honest dialogue about America’s future.