FEBRUARY 26, 2020 – After watching yet another Democratic “debate,” I’m convinced that these “debates” are a Republican plot. Who among Democrats thinks these are a good idea?
First, if you aren’t yet familiar with the candidates’ policy positions; their speech patterns, head movements, and hand gestures, you haven’t been paying attention. Bernie “Not-so-Sociable” Sanders is still letting himself “be cleah” without a hint of humor. Lest we’ve forgotten, Joe “Here’s-the-Deal” Biden accomplished so many things . . . all by himself—long ago. Elizabeth “Yellin'” Warren is still “a fighter.” Mike “Money” Bloomberg still rolls his eyes when Warren fights him. Amy “Midwest” Klobuchar’s grandfather still worked in the mines. Again, Tom “Nods-a-Lot” Steyer started a bank for underserved business owners. Pete “Cool” Buttigieg keeps reminding us . . . he’s smart.
Why do we need to be dragged yet again behind their rickety chariots around circus maximus?
Second, who’s helped by a professional wrestling approach to establishing presidential bona fides? At one point in the “debate” all seven contestants were talking—yelling—at the same time! At several junctures I thought if a folding chair (with a giant red herring painting on the seat) had been within reach, one candidate or another would’ve used it to bonk an opponent over the head.
Third, as I’ve said here repeatedly, the “debate” format, emphasizing policy positions, ignores how government, generally, works and how the presidency, specifically, operates. I blame the moderators for this. They need to ask questions that at once educate viewers and knock the candidates off their scripts. Here are several examples:
TO BERNIE: “Senator Sanders, we’re all familiar with the main points of your agenda. We also know how passionate your followers are about that agenda. But to get your legislative agenda through Congress—probably with Republicans retaining control of the Senate, and in any event, with moderate Democrats—you’re going to have to compromise. Explain for us how you plan to do that without alienating your followers. ”
TO STEYER: “Mr. Steyer, as an outsider, how will you recruit people with enough experience in Washington to work effectively with Congress and sprawling federal bureaucracies?”
TO WARREN: “Senator Warren, you told us that you’ll appoint a public school teacher as Secretary of Education. Where will you find a public school teacher with experience managing 4,000 employees and an annual budget of $68 billion? Surely you mean someone who has experience as a public school teacher. What other experience will you be looking for and where will you find such a person—and when? While you’re at it, how about the Secretary of Defense?”
TO BLOOMBERG: “You’re no ordinary billionaire. You’re one 50 times over. Though that might make your campaign independent from special interests, what about conflicts of interest if you’re elected president? Besides placing your holdings in a blind trust, how can you assure the American people that you’ll avoid conflicts of interest?”
I don’t think the Democrats can survive another “debate.” They need to call last night’s slugfest their last if they wish to save the Republic from the Wrecking Ball.
(Remember to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.)
© 2020 by Eric Nilsson
