Daggers Out
Once again, Donald Trump won a Democratic debate. As the candidates tore each other to pieces, he and his supporters must have been smiling, as they gleefully continue to dismantle our democratic system.
Basically, I believe the best way to enhance your relative stature is to raise yourself up rather than trying to reduce that of those around you. But I recognize that in a political competition, some attacks on rivals are par for the course. But in the Nevada debate, mutual bashing became the primary activity, with a viciousness and purposelessness that will only come back to haunt the ultimate nominee.
In most cases, the attack points were trivial, even petty. The candidates seemed to be randomly sticking pins in their opponents, searching for Achilles Heals that would destroy them. This went beyond purity testing to brute nastiness, for which Mayor Pete deserves first prize.
The only exception I feel was truly constructive were the challenges to Bloomberg on his toleration of stop-and-frisk abuse, and on charges of a sexist environment in his company. These were legitimate questions, and his responses were not only evasive but revealing. Pretending that releasing victims from NDAs, allowing them to speak out if they chose to do so, would somehow compromise their privacy is absurd.
An Exercise in Repetition
The substantive aspects of the debate were also pathetic, and boring. Far too much time was spent, once again, on Medicare for All and its alternatives. Everyone agreed the current system needs to be dramatically improved, and the efforts to destroy Obamacare, flawed as it is, needs to be stopped. Everyone favors universal coverage, with different solutions and approaches to getting there.
But remember: Obamacare was the best compromise solution a very popular president, with a politically savvy vice-president, could achieve. Realizing anyone’s vision will require control of both houses of Congress and a lot of patience and flexibility.
So, we had to listen to everyone saying what they have already said countless times, about healthcare, global warming, and the few other issues discussed, while sniping against their opponents. Many other major topics were never even raised, or received one-liners which were just throw-aways. What about the huge, huge elephant in the room?
Elephantry, My Dear Candidates
A casual viewer who had been off the grid for the last few months would hardly have guessed the nation’s democratic institutions were under assault and our alliances were being undone, and the only thing standing in the way of their complete destruction was a sweeping Democratic victory in November.
Sure, all the candidates proclaimed the need to defeat Trump. But this became like a formula in a responsive prayer, that alternates a phrase like “Lord have mercy” with a litany of lengthy appeals that in this case were hardly addressed to our better angels. The sense of urgency demanded to address this threat has only intensified over the past week was totally lacking.
A true recognition of the critical juncture in our national history would have led all the candidates to focus their ire on the president, underscoring the absolute imperative for the Democratic Party to remain unified and refraining from the suicidal attacks on each other. They failed to do so.
Another Media Failure
But to be fair, much of the blame for the disastrous debate falls upon Lester Holt and the NBC management who structured the event as a food fight. Holt announced from the beginning he wanted the candidates to engage with each other, and many of the questions asked one candidate to react to the positions of another.
Many of the other questions were challenges intended to provoke, putting responders on the defensive and opening them up to criticism from their peers. Of course, that’s part of any moderated debate, but the balance was tipped much too far in that direction. And the candidates just fell into the trap rather than rise above it.
In fact, they could have changed the narrative forced on them by the moderators, much as they regularly changed the topics from the questions asked. They didn’t.
One can only imagine that NBC decided that an acrimonious spectacle was what viewers wanted, rather than what the nation needed. In other words, they made the same calculation the media did in 2016 when they realized Trump’s outrageous behavior would attract far more viewers than Hillary’s (or his Republican opponents’) more serious, policy-focused appearances, so gave him far greater coverage than he really deserved.
And so, the results could be the same this time around, with NBC joining the other enablers of a thoroughly discredited president.
I’m afraid I must agree that the scene at the Colosseum was framed to eliminate all the combatants by provoking them to slaughter each other, and Warren led the contubernium — or herd — to a disaster in which the other sheep — or lemmings? — willingly complied.
Sorry for the mixed metaphors.
FoxwithNews can rejoice with the content naively provided.
Thanks, Alan. We can survive mixed metaphors, but not a schoolyard brawl deciding who should take on the real bully waiting to see if anyone is left standing.
But just to follow your imagery, the defeated sheep will ultimately all take on Fox’s clothing, as their bleatings will be repeated endlessly.
I dunno, I think the back and forth on the specifics of each candidate’s plans, particularly at this point in the debates, was useful. All candidates it seems, want us to believe that once they ascend to the high office a minor miracle will occur: the legislature and voters will be so galvanized by the president elect’s persuasiveness and charismatic power that they’ll strive tirelessly to fulfill all of the leader’s campaign promises. For Trump, once in, he’d bring lost jobs back, cut taxes, fix immigration, remove us from blood-sucking alliances, and deliver a better health care plan – and not pay a penny for any of it. Of course, he’s done none of those things but, hey, he just needs a little more time, right?
So, I think it’s reasonable and helpful to poke at each candidate’s blue sky dreamscape to try to determine which, if any, has a chance in Hell – i.e., the current political landscape – of ever being realized. Bernie, how much is it going to cost? Really? And we’ll be able to pay for it how? Just what do you others mean by building on Obamacare? It’s been years now and prices continue to spiral higher and beyond reach for many every year? How can two streams of health care, each with their attendant costs, bring about a more affordable and responsive total solution? It would seem the economies each side offers would be compromised, and total costs could only go even higher. (Actually, questions of the moderate, supposedly unifying Goldilocks plans aren’t asked very often; but they should be.)
The only problem I have with these critical lines of discussion is that they’ve so far only involved health care. I think the same calls for detailed plans should be made for the grand environmental, criminal justice programs and future multi-lateral foreign agreements each is so proud to grandly list for us – even if they’re so broadbrush as to be meaningless.
What I think we don’t need to hear anymore of – again, at this point – is how terrible Trump has been for us, our former friends, the world, the environment, the solar system….and how determined they all are to beat him. That’s become the democratic mantra, repeated to the point of self-parody. Except we all know it; isn’t a mantra supposed to be secret – an underlying motivation that’s revealed only through action? Instead, it’s the safe zone they all return to after a lull or a misstep in their narrative: in spite of what I just said, or didn’t, what I really stand for is beating Trump, and I will, and that’s why I’m running for you, and for the country. God bless.
Yeah, great; never would have guessed, this being a 2- party system and all. Thanks for sharing.
So, I say, except for cheap shots like Petey took at Amy for forgetting a name, let’s turn the heat up more. And see which programs each is baking in their campaign’s oven come out smelling good, and which are burned to a crisp.
Steve, you make a lot of good points, and I’m not sure we’re really so far apart of these. I think what both of us want is more substance, less hype.
You’re absolutely right that we need more solid explanations of the various plans each candidate puts forward, and then allow the rivals to critique on the merits. But neither the format nor, quite frankly, the audience, is really up for this.
The time limits for each question prevents a candidate really laying out their plans, so they do the talking points. Their opponents then hurl their barbs which tend to be half-truths at best, hoping to score points.
Of course, all the plans can be found on their websites, but who reads them?
Also agree it would be great to cover many other issues other than healthcare.
I think it would be much more helpful if the moderators asked direct questions about the various plans, either neutrally, “how will this work?” or more challengingly, “How can this really be paid for or pass Congress?” Then give the candidate 5 minutes to really respond fully if they are willing to.
So, perhaps less heat and more honest discussion.
But thanks for taking the time to read and respond!