Two lurid moments linger from the recent baffling sitcom labeled the Vice-Presidential Debate.

I say baffling because words must mean something, otherwise why use them? Our word “debate”, cognate with combat and batter, conveys a sense of strenuous contest, a clash of opposing points of view. This “debate” was as real as a WWF wrestling match or the mock gladiator battles our grandkids enjoyed when we were in Rome: that is, wholly pretend, only in this televised instance the imposture was denied, making the show doubly fake. Everything was pretend – words, gestures, expressions, faux facts – memorized, rehearsed, and intended not to persuade but to delude. The ablest pretender – that is, slickest liar – was deemed by the instant pundits to have “won” – for these purportedly independent observers were likewise in on the ruse.

Baffling moment A was when the intrepid moderator corrected Candidate Vance about the legal status of Haitians in Springfield, Ohio.  “The rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact-check!” peeved the sort-of-handsome just-turned-forty slickster (and yes, “peeve” may be used intransitively). That moderator was messing with his act – the nerve of her!

Baffling moment B was when Candidate Walz claimed friendship with school shooters when he obviously meant school shooting victims. Pundits pounced on that gaffe like hungry cougars on a rabbit, though nobody in their right mind misread that claim as other than a slip. Can you imagine how taxing it is speaking extemporaneously to an invisible audience of forty million when that’s not your expertise? Walz has been a teacher, coach, soldier, legislator, governor (of a small state), but not a professional performer. He’s had to act, of course – we all do – but not on such an unforgiving stage. Vance has been a salesman, lawyer, bestselling author, Senator, versions of professional fraudster. Walz immediately apologized for his goof. Vance, note, never admits a mistake, just talks faster, forcing new lies to square with his old.

So it’s a show – our version of a gladiator spectacle – entertainment – what’s the big deal? Isn’t it preferable to witness candidates side by side, however flawed the forum?

What baffles me is the absence of truth, honesty, sincerity, probity – call it what you will – from this transmission – an absence so entire and manifold it’s nearly impossible to tease out any useful conclusion from the event. Yes, Vance is a better liar than Walz – he’s a natural; born to deceive – does that make him a worthier candidate to lead the free world? Vance’s present boss is also a liar, but so patent and absurd his followers find it frolicsome, clownish, part of the shtick – every day a new howler – gotta love the guy! Vance’s duplicity is more nefarious – mirabile dictu! – masquerading as straight-shooting.

How are we to cope in a post-truth world? How to decide what to do or think in a fog of disbelief? With the Internet’s increasing dominance and the exfoliation of AI, truth will become ever harder to discern, so even practiced skeptics will struggle to fix their whereabouts. And this ignorance isn’t bliss, it’s blastoma, corroding sense, sanity, equanimity, leaving us frantic idiots, flailing in a funhouse devised to keep us fooled.

The destruction of truth is Trump’s most pernicious legacy. We can restore reproductive rights, voting equity, even banish big money from politics if we get the votes. Trust is tougher to restore. A single lie, like a single cockroach, convinces us multitudes wait undetected for their voracious chance.

Language is our only defense against lies. Written words we can bite like coins for counterfeit. Only with true words can we truly debate.

I’ll keep trying.