The Real Problem With ABC’s Debate

There’s a back and forth going on regarding the last debate on ABC News. I think both sides are partially right and both are partially wrong. The accusatory tones going back and forth are not helping, either.

The complainers main argument seems to be that actual substance took a backseat. The supporters note that these kinds of issues are important to voters too. Both of those points have merit, but don’t implicate the ideas of people they are arguing against.

In debate, these types of arguments are commonly referred to as ships passing in the night. While one or both have legitimate points, neither address the points of the other.

In this instance, the bickering and biases of both sides prevent reasonable type solutions.

To wit: Those types of non-issues are important for voters. That’s why it didn’t matter what Al Sharpton’s health care policy was 4 years ago. Or what Gary Bauer’s position on the future of NATO was 8 years ago. Or what virtually any of Ralph Nader’s positions ever are. There’s a certain sense of respect that Americans require of the President (this is different from the commander in chief argument). Angelo and I have been discussing it, and he mentioned that it may be a result of the President being both the head of state and head of government. The office is beyond issues. That’s why you can read the 2000 election as to some extent a rejection of the Bill Clinton’s time in office. (While Gore won the popular vote, it was not by the margin one would have expected if you disregard impeachment, Monica, etc. Liberals hate to admit this.)

On the other hand, there’s virtually no reason for both candidates to weigh in on these issues. It does not matter what Sen. Clinton thinks of Wright or the comments in San Francisco, and it does not matter what Sen. Obama thinks of the Bosnia story. These questions need to be asked one on one in a live format. The proper place would be somewhere like Meet the Press, but Russert has recently gone off the deep end looking for gotcha questions instead of just exploring these controversial issues.

Point being, that when people complain about a debate being a waste, it’s not just because these issues came up necessarilly. The questions deserved answers. But that’s not what a debate is for. Listen to the NPR debate or the Des Moines Register Debate, or even most of the last ABC Debate. When a debate turns into a discussion of the issues, it raises up all the candidates and the country as a whole.

There’s been over discussion of some issues in this campaign (health care mandates, for one) and under discussion of a whole lot of crucial other ones. (Republicans have barely talked about health care while Democrats could have held a symposium on it. Democrats have barely gotten into climate change except to all try to outdo each other in praise for Al Gore.)

Some might say: What if candidates duck appearances to avoid that type of questioning? Then ask them about that; the opposition candidate surely can comment on a candidate refusing to engage in a discussion like that. But the throws to Obama and Clinton to comment on the missteps of the other are just very awkward and unnecessary.

Now that primary debates are apparently finished, it’s appropriate to look back and realize what could have been and what could be. Let’s have more discourse next time while leaving the other questions for a better forum. The chance of that happening? Well, I’m not holding my breath.