Debate 2019 Part 2, Day 1

Well, fellow citizens, we watched last night's debate, and we were probably just as underwhelmed as anyone else.  But for the most part, the candidates were consistent.  There was one new candidate, Steve Bullock, who revealed the fact that he had not been on stage for the previous debate, because what the candidates say is strongly affected by how they remember their previous performance!

I don't want to appear snide, or patronizing, or cynical, but most voters will agree that what the candidates say during debates may not, and probably will not, relate closely to what they will do if they're elected.  (Of course, in the case of candidates known to be deceitful--and we won't mention names--you just know that  they don't have a clue as to how to go about doing anything, and they never had any intention of doing it anyway! Well, no reason to get discouraged . . .)

There are good reasons for this.
1. Collaboration.  Most of the difficult things they want to do needs support from Congress; and what Congress wants to do and what the president promises have to be merged and forged into what actually gets done.  Of course, a president with a melodramatic style will demand that his or her vision be put into action first, and then pretend to reluctantly compromise, claiming that it is a sign of their willingness to be flexible.
2. Flexibility.  We want to hope that the president is intelligent, and can learn from the best ideas of others.  This presentation of themselves as coming to the debates with all their program fully formed, like Venus rising from the waves, is a concession to the worst aspects of media coverage.  The media is usually harsh with any candidate who appears to show that they don't know the details of their plans.  Some of the most weak-minded candidates did take the time to learn the details of their own plans, but then clung to those details so tenaciously that we must suspect that they did not realize that they were details.  And of course you can't change your mind about any detail, because that would be Flip-Flopping, another modern evil invented and enjoyed by the most mediocre of news personalities.
3. The next point is rather a sad one.  Marketing.  None of the candidates can do anything unless they're elected, and manage to defeat the incumbent (whose name eludes me for the moment).  Therefore, they must declare policies that are a hybrid between what they want personally (which is ultimately only of secondary importance), what their constituents want (which is important), and what undecided voters want, which is actually pretty important as well.  So there are all sorts of calculations going on.  These are the calculations that they teach you in Politics School; it is called political science, and since its birth, the political calculations that the average citizen can make have become a lot more complicated.  We spend a lot of time second-guessing every candidate, and reading between the lines of what they say; was that a marketing statement?

Something that pleased me was that at least a couple of the candidates recognized that the entire row of debaters last night were actually on the same page on most of the issues.  There are transcripts that you can read to get the details; I'm only trying to present general observations, because in my view general observations are important.

4.  There was fair agreement that border security was necessary.  Even if a candidate was of the opinion that an open border would be nice, it is not practical.  In the best of all worlds, there would be no borders; we know that.  But since we cannot share all government services with our pals in the southern countries, we have to have a border.  This is reality; it is also marketing, because the Democrats have been rapped on the knuckles for giving the impression that they really wanted an open border.  There was some disagreement about other aspects of immigration, and rightly so; Immigration is one of the most difficult problems to get our heads around, given that out of the wealth at the disposal of the government with which to provide services to the people, a large proportion is tied up with entities that are controlled by the most wealthy.  There just isn't enough money to waste on unworthy illegal immigrants.

5.  There was agreement that Universal Health Care was necessary.  The more conservative of the candidates wanted that to be reached within so many years; others wanted it right away.  There was considerably less agreement on whether private insurance would be abolished.  Some candidates, who have studied the problem personally, are more inclined to deal harshly with the Health Insurance Industry, to the point of killing it dead.  This seems unnecessarily extreme, and would probably be regarded as constitutionally impossible.

6.  There was agreement that the most wealthy people and corporations had to pay their fair share of taxes.  Even one of the most wealthy candidates on stage agreed that this was reasonable.  However, he seemed reluctant to support the inheritance tax.

There seemed insufficient talk about the so-called downstream races that are so important this election year.  If the Democrats gain a majority in both houses, then un-veto-able legislation could be contemplated.  There is a lot of--well-earned--hostility towards Mitch McConnell, and great determination to unseat him.  The same goes for Susan Collins of Maine, and Martha McSally of Arizona.  If Democrats win all three seats, the Senate will effectively have a bare Republican majority (since the Vice President is the chair of the Senate, and has a casting vote).

There was also little talk about Climate Change.  Many of the candidates said at the first debate that rejoining the Paris Accords would be their first order of business.  But I get the impression that candidates are fearful about backlash from talking about environmental issues.  Let's face it: with an ignorant population, disaster is almost inevitable.  With half the population distrustful of science, and the other half hunkering down to pray, things are looking bleak.  But Be of Good Cheer, as Charles Schultz famously said.

The bottom line is that, in fact, I would be satisfied for anyone on the stage to be the Democrat nominee.  If the vote were to go on straight party lines, then the Democrats would win if enough of them came out to vote.  Elizabeth Warren kept making that point: enough people would come out to vote only if they were voting on a platform of policies that was exciting and imaginative.  On the other hand, there are more mature voters who would only be comfortable with "more of same", which is something only aging Democrats want.  Aging Republicans, on the other hand, voted for Trump because they did not want more of same; it is difficult to guess what they will do this time.

Arch