Debates Update

Michael Barone proposes letting Republicans and Democrats mix it up in the primaries with two-party debates. Since Republican debaters spend half their time attacking Hillary Clinton anyway, this is surely a good idea (at least once the early primaries weed out a few candidates). The combination of our new super-long election cycle plus legitimate political differences in this country makes for a weird dynamic - much policy debate, but confined within certain taken-for-granted boundaries (in the Dem debates every participant wants to leave Iraq, and the question is merely over the time and method; in the Republican debates everyone wants to get tough with Iran, and the question is only who will be most tough).

Since the next President will almost certainly not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and since the liberal/conservative and centrist wings of both parties often clash in any case, moving forward on the most important issues - Iraq, health care, detainees - will inevitably involve compromise. To find those compromises, we should start comparing the views of each side now, rather than waiting until basically two-thirds through the election cycle.

Put differently, I would much rather hear a debate between Republicans and Democrats over how much government should intervene in the health care market (and how we should pay for that intervention) than a debate between two Democrats over the role of mandates in securing universal coverage. I would rather hear John Edwards attack Republicans for preferring tax breaks for millionaires over coverage for 48 million uninsured than hear him attack Barack Obama for a plan that only achieves near-universal coverage. When Mitt Romney ludicrously proposes to "double Guantanamo", having Democrats present to respond will enliven the debate, whereas now John McCain simply seethes in silence.

There are some issues - e.g. abortion - in which even bipartisan debate will probably not change anyone's mind. But anyone with faith with progressive ideas should welcome clash with conservatives as early and often as possible. The case for raising taxes on the rich to fund universal health care, for engaging in diplomacy with hostile countries, and for respecting basic human rights of detainees is already persuasive to Democratic primary voters. Forcing these ideas to engage the conservative counter-punch early on can strengthen their appeal to independents and moderate Republicans as well.

Presidential Debates.... Not a Waste of Time After All

Everyone from George Will to Jon Stewart has taken to mocking the supposed excess of Presidential debates. The debates thus far have been far from perfect: the large number of candidates forces discussion of complex issues down to thirty-second sound bites, compromising intelligent discourse even more than in election cycles past. Organizing debates with fewer candidates might mitigate this problem, but this raises the inevitable difficulty of deciding fairly who will participate in each debate - and the specter of lesser-known candidates crying foul anytime a debate occurs without them (recall Kucinich's indignant response to the Clinton-Edwards private exchange over smaller debates).

Flawed as they are, the primary debates thus far been undeniably successful in helping citizens to get a better understanding of candidates. For those of us who do not live in Iowa or New Hampshire, and are not rich enough to attend fund-raising dinners, they represent one of the precious few changes to see candidates in action. This is especially true for dark-horse candidates - e.g. Mike Huckabee or Bill Richardson -and the free media exposure that comes through the debates can at least conceivably mitigate the phenomenon of requiring that people already be famous before they can be Presidential contenders.

More than mere familiarity, however, the practice of having competing candidates answer the same questions has drawn attention to substantive differences among the front-runners in each party. It was in response to a question during the August YouTube debate that Obama vowed to talk with leaders - of Syria, Iran, Venezuela, et al. - that the U.S. currently shuns; citing Cold War history, Obama criticized the notion that "the U.S. can punish or change hostile states simply by ignoring them." In response to the same question Hillary pounced on Obama as naive, refusing to commit to talk with leaders who would exploit her for propaganda purposes (specifically Ahmadinejad).

Whatever your position on the merits, the exchange revealed one of the first substantive foreign policy differences between Clinton and Obama (Hillary's vote to brand Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization has subsequently revealed another). The debates have also drawn attention to lesser policy differences, such as the disagreement between Edwards and Obama over whether a health care plan can achieve universal coverage without mandating that everyone purchase insurance.

Beyond highlighting policy differences, one learns a lot about a candidate's character by him to think on his feet. Thus, perhaps the most revealing moment of the debates thus far was Mitt Romney's answer to a question about whether the Constitution would oblige the President to seek Congressional authorization for a strategic attack on Iran's nuclear facilities (think Osirak).
Romney replied:

You sit down with your attorneys and tell you want you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress.

When pressed by Chris Matthews for a clarification, Romney once again insisted that he would "sit down with his attorneys." For a Presidential candidate to punt on a question of such import reveals a frightening lack of seriousness. Coupled with Romney's proposal to "double Guantanamo" (also given during a debate), the Iran answer further illustrated to me the danger of putting Romney in charge of U.S. armed forces.

In the interest of more policy clash and more glimpses into candidate thoughtfulness, I say - more debates! If more candidates can candidates can ape the humor of McCain's Woodstock quip, these things might really become worth watching.