My Take on the Upcoming Debate

The editor of the New York Times, who will be one of the moderators, has invited suggestions for questions, which got me thinking.  I apologize in advance for the rather discontinuous nature of these comments that follow.

What do people want from these debates?  They do not really show the candidates in any special light that will help us make a decision about which of them is best suited to lead the country.  It is an environment more like a Congressional Committee than the Oval Office; a President does not have to give brilliant On The Floor ripostes--except for press conferences, I suppose.

What people should be looking for is:

Does this candidate share my values?  That is the most important.  Most of the other criteria flow from the answer to that question.

Does this candidate have the temperament to de-escalate conflict, rather than to aggravate conflict?

Is this candidate driven by attitudes towards issues rather than party loyalty?

All of the Democratic candidates so far seem to have displayed these qualities, some more than others.  Some have a gentler approach towards the problem, others have a more combative approach, which might have to be forgiven, given the fact that the Democratic Party has been on the receiving end of so many attacks--even granted that the entertainment industry has often been ruthless in their personal attacks on Donald Trump.

Behind what conservatives see as the push towards wealth re-distribution, we see the most pressing problem that American politics faces: money in politics.  Lobbying, corruption, dark money, campaign finance, all of these things are made possible because of the enormous income and wealth inequity that the fiscal conservatives have shoved down the throats of ordinary low-income people, and there is a lot of sense in taking that approach.  So while the candidates see the issue of wealth and income redistribution as bringing out the Anti Socialist rhetoric, campaign finance reform and directly associated problems can be tackled with greater agreement.  It would be good to know which candidates can see this to be true.

The issue of Health Care Reform, and Medicare For All has been pushed in previous debates.  In my view, it does not matter if a candidate does not have his or her head completely wrapped around the details of a Health Care Plan.  What do we want:  A health care consultant or a president?  Creating a good health care plan, be it a plan with a private insurance component or without, will take a team approach, with many knowledgeable people contributing their expertise.  A public debate is not the place for deciding this.   Which candidate will be sufficiently flexible to be open to the best ideas from the other candidates?

The Gun Lobby is widely seen as an obstacle to reducing gun violence in the US.  Guns are supposed to be used for personal safety.  For hunting.  For defense of the home.  Unfortunately, when guns are in the news, these are not what the guns have been used for.  Also, unfortunately, only a bipartisan reform will be likely to survive multiple administrations.  The only way to push reform forward is to identify representatives of the people who stubbornly oppose sensible legislation, and eliminate them.  It is hard to see how to identify candidates who are in agreement with this statement, but it would make sense to ask a question about gun reform.

Much of the terrible problems with waste control and environmental pollution is because the US is marking time until recycling plastic waste becomes profitable.  If ever there was an opportunity for Federal intervention, this is it.  Which candidates are on board with government support for recycling waste, and processing waste in a non-polluting way?  There may already be such an initiative.  Why haven't I heard of it?

There seems a certain degree of agreement that part of the solution to immigration pressures at the southern border has to be a reasonable aid program for Central American countries, as well as support for Mexican efforts at law enforcement within Mexico.  It is difficult to interfere with the internal affairs of other countries (though that hasn't stopped us in the past), but there is reason to believe that in many cases where heavy US aid has been directed to Central and South America, the aid has succeeded in fueling lawlessness and corruption, instead of improving the lives of the poorest in those countries.  What can be done?  This is a problem best left to specialists, but it cannot be ignored.

We have known for a while that Climate Change has to be addressed quickly and effectively.  Part of the problem is the personal transport habit of American citizens; in short, the love affair with cars that has been going on for more than a century, and spread to other countries as well.  Addressing the environmental effects of automobiles is soon going to be a very unpopular thing which a president will have to spearhead.  How will a candidate approach this problem, given the liabilities of taking an unpopular stand against the automobile as a source of entertainment and an expression of personal power and affluence?  Much of the auto industry has moved abroad, so economically a push against the auto industry should not be as painful as it would have in the past.  But public perception of the automobile as being emblematic of American power will die hard.  It will be difficult to win an election offering only blood, tears and sweat, but it looks very much as though those are going to be the means of bringing back America from the edge of the Great Again Abyss.

Arch