Sep 13, 2019
Sharp Debate, but Bad Understanding
Terry H. Schwadron
Sept. 13, 2019
Yes, there were any number of sharp elbows among one another, but enough voices arose regularly during last night’s Democratic debate among 10 candidates to keep Donald Trump as the villain who needs to be turned out.
Yes, there were disagreements that rose — in volume and intensity — over approaches to health care and racial divide, though we all understood as viewers that many of the differences were manufactured to justify a separate personal candidacy.
Yes, there was a hail of opportune statistics, all available to be plucked and used at the moment in a crazed attempt to declare that my fact was better than yours.
But most of all, it was the fog of a kind of desperation that seemed to settle over the stage was the most pervasive trait of the evening. These are 10 people, each of whom could be president and a far better president than Trump, who really seem each to want the job so much that they would occasionally but predictably step on one another to get attention.
It’s the problem with this kind of format; it is a photo-op competition, not an intelligent way to find who would make a good president. In 10 extended interviews, you’d get so much more information, context and idea of what they actually care about — — and a whole lot less noise. This fascination with one-liners and one-upmanship statements are making the format the winner, not the candidates.
Indeed the moments that worked best were when the moderators and collegages just let each candidate speak without interruption.
The debate opened with a distinctly unhealthy round-robin on health care approaches that was almost painful in its endless yelling and fact-throwing without seeking to center the discussion. Finally, one of the candidates noted that hey, folks, while we’re arguing about approaches for more coverage, let’s remember that Donald Trump has worked ceaselessly to undercut health care, just because it carries Barack Obama’s name.
The pundits certainly will find steps ahead for this one, fallen steps for others. Kamala Harris’ almost folksy, but sometimes snarky way belied a few stiletto shots; Beto O’Rourke basked in the congratulations of his colleagues for handling of shootings in his hometown of El Paso and crowd cheers for talking about confiscating assault-style weapons; Julian Castro suffered some gasps and boos for seeming to call Joe Biden’s memory into question; Andrew Yang drew appreciative laughs and applause for offering 10 donors $1,000 per month for a year.
The health care discussion reached a point of futile flailing that showed only that solving health care in this country is a mighty complicated business, and this kind of debate stage is probably the worst place in America to seek agreement. Candidates were too committed to their announced, public plans to engage in any useful and actual discussion, never mind debate.
All that said, it was unlikely that this debate night changed much of anything: Joe Biden will remain just liberal enough to appeal to people who are comfortable with his partnership with former president Barack Obama, He was so how-to about each issue as to take the passion out of the argument.
Bernie Sanders’ appeal for the leader of an ever-present needed political revolution, and Elizabeth Warren’s planful presentation of a herself as representing a smart presidency just would not quit, insisting on taking every issue down to a base principle.
Those who went into the night waiting for Joe Biden to screw up somehow could go away disappointed. He was good enough to retain his lead in the horse race, though he managed to look down his nose at most of the others on stage.
Bernie and Elizabeth held the fort on protecting the idea that we need to be thinking about what more America can be beyond removing Trump from the White House. Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar reminded us that there is no single way to achieve compromise. Mayor Pete made quiet sense every time he spoke, Cory Booker and Andrew Yang were there, of sagacious, but no one may remember.
Immigration, Climate Change, China policy, Afghanistan decision-making all came up, with different but reasonable and informed comments. Poverty and education got mentions that had escaped the past debates. The greediest corporations took a few to the chin.
In some ways, it seemed like a debate for who might become a vice presidential pick.
The big enemy of the night seemed Division, as in the divisions pursued by the Trump White House and campaign. Could we come away with a singular character among those on stage who could make a real difference? Doubtful. The good news was that they all seemed focused on trying, which may prove just good enough for the country.
##
www.terryschwadron.wordpress.com
