Del, here's the piece I wrote about the much needed and long overdue debates which you may have seen on the other board:
A Voter’s Wish
I dreamed that I was looking out over a large valley. The valley had two distinct halves. Half was pristine and beautiful, covered with pines and other greenery. The other was garish. The valley's floor looked like a casino in the shape of a huge pinball machine with animated characters from a Batman movie or an S. Clay Wilson cartoon. The contrast was glaring and distressing.
Now, I know that the psychologically oriented reader has already developed a profounder view of the meaning of this dream for me as a person than I'm likely to ever realize, but I do have my own interpretation of this dream: I think it is about the presidential election.
Cynicism, resignation, alienation, disinterest, etc. do not negate the fact that the 2000 election is a moment of great significance. The American voter is about to make a real choice between profoundly different candidates and significantly different men. What cynicism et al. can do, however, is blunt our interest in what should be a
highly substantive campaign. Alienation and disinterest can turn what could be an intense engagement over issues into a personality parade and popularity contest between some white guys that a lot of people aren't going to be that excited by.
Debates, starting immediately, are the preventative needed to achieve a dynamic outcome. When we start getting debates between the primary contenders, we'll also get all of the excitement and personality information we need to make this the informative, entertaining, high intensity campaign we need to make a solid choice as a new, and very different, century begins.
Why start debates right now: Won't there be time in October? Who's really paying attention? Debates are boring, especially with these guys. Besides, the majority of eligible people don't even vote.
All good points. Here's my answer: I believe we should start debate right away simply because we confront such a varied host of very serious and complex issues. My dream tells me that we are at a global "tipping point". I can feel the tectonic movement of massive and interrelated system forces inching toward a climactic rupture.
The list of things to worry about include drivers such as: population growth, environmental degradation, rampant incivility and barbarism, and class hostility . (In looking at the list I'm reminded of the press conference from the 60s cult classic, Brand X, in which the actor playing Richard Nixon is asked by the real Jimi Hendrix at a
staged news conference: "Mr. President, what will you do when the inevitable occurs?" To which Nixon responded, "We here at the White House are optimistic. We don't believe that the inevitable will ever occur.")
So, even if they start immediately, we won't have nearly enough time to get through a rigorous analysis of the issues at hand. We'll pay a heavy price for our ignorance. Ignorance that can be avoided if the candidates start showing us how they think about things by engaging with each other.
Here's a short list of the topics I would like to see discussed and debated. You'll see that it already contains a goodly number of topics and that it probably doesn't include subjects which are priorities to you:
o What is the appropriate role of the government in the economy? Should we have a tax cut? If so, how large? What will the impact of various tax cuts be on Social Security and other social and military programs? Should part of social security be privatized? Why? Why not? What would the impact of the privatizing of social security be on existing income disparities?
o What steps should government make to support/reform public education? Should we support voucher programs?
o What constitutes national defense in this era? What decisions should be made on: the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (the foundation of the US/Russian military détente), the proposal for a revised Missile Defense System, the level of men and women serving in the armed forces, etc.
o What should be Federal policy towards the rights or women, minorities, homosexuals, the disabled and others who feel that they are suffering injustices, if not a violation of their human rights? Should the national government take an interventionist stand here or should these matters be left more to the states? How will appointments to the Supreme Court and all the other elements of the Federal Court system affect these issues?
o What is to be done about the continuing degradation of the natural environment? What are the candidates' thoughts and plans regarding global warming? Is there such a thing as "urban sprawl" and, if so, how should it be dealt with? How quickly can we and should we move to non-polluting energy and transportation options? What, if any, further investments and legislation are needed to protect the quality of our air, soil, water, food supplies, prescription drugs, etc.?
o What should happen with our health care system? How should we address the problem of the millions of people who don't have health care coverage? Are they entitled to it or should it continue to be a privilege? How much should the Federal government be involved in the regulation of commodities and trade which may not "be good for people?" (E.g., recent reports of 30%+ obesity/40%+ overweight in the US ascribe a significant part of the problem to fast foods. Obesity is a direct contributor to higher health care costs. Should the US government be playing a more direct role in regulating what we eat?)
o Should something be done to change the way in which campaigns are paid for? What effect would reforms here have on the exercise of free speech? What effect is the absence of reform having on free speech?
o How should we address the phenomenon of guns in our culture?
o What should our national agricultural policy be? The small farmers have suffered, in particular over the last two decades. Do we have a national interest in protecting their way of life or should we accept that they do not have a role to play in the current market place?
o What investment should we be making in off-world exploration? How important is it to discover if there is water on Mars and life on Europa?
These are complex issues. All of them, plus those that are on your lists, could and should be the focus of a national debate or town hall meeting. We needs lots of 'em. Serendipitously, these sorts of events have the added benefit of acting as a de facto reform of our campaign finance system. They don't cost nearly as much as all the ads.
Let me be clear that I am already a supporter of Al Gore's, and I expect that I would continue to be after any number of debates. Gore is ready to go on debates. He's accepted at least forty five invitations already. He's a serious man. He's eager to let the public know where he stands through the process of encounter with an opponent. Bush is not. For all I know, Bush may actually do much better at these debates than I and other Gore supporters anticipate. A lot of people already like him, and the debates may only make him more attractive. I'm simply saying that we deserve to find out what will happen when these two men engage.
Furthermore, I think that there is probably a real case to be made for adding Nader and Buchanan to the debate mix, even though I am not attracted to either of them and both of them will injure the electability of the "major" candidates. This question needs more attention.
The clock is ticking. It's been well over 100 days since Gore first called upon Bush to debate. We are very likely to face a situation in the Fall where there will be two debates and 100,000 thirty second commercials. We are in a position to change this dynamic. Debates can happen now if there is a real ground swell from the population to make them happen. Why not?! Pass this letter on to anyone you think might be interested. Call and write your newspapers, radio and television stations asking them to demand debates. Write the networks. We deserve to know how these candidates think. Critically important decisions will be made in the next four years. Let's fight to make sure that they are good ones.
Which side of the valley is for you?
Thank you for your consideration of this position. |
