SEND TO A FRIEND

|

PRINT ARTICLE

|

What Tonight's Debate Should Be About

The focus in most presidential debates so far has been as much on the politics of issues as on their substance. That's likely to be true again tonight, when the Democratic candidates meet in Nevada (7 Central time, CNN).

It's also probably inevitable when candidates get only a minute to discuss complex issues and their main goals are to avoid mistakes, zing the front-runner and say something zippy that will make the post-debate news shows.Not only do such encounters produce more heat than light, but most moderators try less to elicit information than to inspire a memorable sound-bite clash.

In-depth interviews like Tim Russert's on NBC's Meet the Press are far more useful in exploring the details and viability of their proposals, as was clear again in his probing session Sunday with Sen. Barack Obama. Mr. Russert forced the senator to explain his plans for Iraq - he said it would take 16 months to withdraw all combat troops - and his rationale in accepting money from state lobbyists but not federal ones.

Other Democrats also have said things that require elaboration. Here are some:

John Edwards: The former North Carolina senator blames powerful special interests for preventing progress on major national problems but has trouble explaining how he'd change that.

"We have a system that's broken," he said in an Oct. 30 MSNBC debate. "It's rigged, it's corrupt, and it does not work for the American people, and it's time we start telling the truth about that."

Attacking Washington's lobbyists and establishment is hardly new. But it's hard to see how this will persuade that establishment to make sweeping changes. After all, we're unlikely to have a Congress full of neophytes.

Mr. Edwards made a similarly dubious argument in saying he would pass comprehensive health care by making Congress cut off its own coverage first until it acts. That's totally unrealistic.

Barack Obama: He accused front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton of running a "textbook" campaign "that's all about winning elections but says nothing about how to bring the country together to solve problems." That, Mr. Obama said, "encourages vague, calculated answers to suit the politics of the moment, instead of clear, consistent principles about how you would lead America."

An ideal strategy should seek both to win an election and unite the country in order to govern. Rhetoric about the need for unity won't achieve it, as recent presidents have shown.

On Meet the Press, Mr. Obama said again that a relative newcomer, like himself, could "focus on getting the job done, as opposed to getting embroiled in ideological arguments which have become so common in Washington."

But those ideological battles stem from political divisions on issues: tax cuts for the wealthy, a stronger government role in ensuring health care coverage, global warming and the war in Iraq.

While a strong animus for the Clintons always has motivated some Republicans, those partisan differences won't vanish if Mr. Obama wins the White House and pushes a similar agenda.

Besides, the last person to argue the merits of an outsider approach was George W. Bush.

Hillary Clinton: Her rivals are correct that, on issues like immigration and Social Security, she has avoided specifics, presumably to avoid angering those who might disagree but also to retain maximum flexibility if she wins.

On Social Security, she said she favors a bipartisan panel of the sort that rescued the system in 1983 and won't first favor one solution over another.

That recognizes the partisan battle that erupts every time someone proposes cutting benefits or increasing payroll taxes. But neither her answer nor attacks against it permits a serious discussion about whether that's a better approach than Mr. Obama saying in advance that he would increase Social Security taxes on higher income workers.

An even more complicated issue is the controversy over illegal immigrants and driver's licenses, which Mrs. Clinton fumbled during and after the last debate.

The real question, to which she alluded, is what to do about the millions of illegal immigrants now driving without licenses.

Denying licenses plays to anti-immigrant feeling but doesn't solve the practical problem. No one seemed interested in discussing that.

Debates have increasingly dominated the campaign, but the way these issues have been handled show their shortcomings. With so many candidates, it may not prove possible to explore these issues in a serious way until the field narrows this spring.

---

Facebook

|

Email

|

Print

|

---

Related Topics: election 2008 |

Sponsored Links