Last night, on 13 October 2015, the five leading Democratic candidates for President of the United States had their first debate. I sat glued to the TV for two and a half hours, interested in what they had to say, pleased with the collegiality and substance of the discussion. I embarrassedly admit that, if I had ever heard of Jim Webb, Martin O’Malley or Lincoln Chafee, the three lesser known candidates, I did not remember anything about their positions—so I wanted to know what they thought. The tone of the debate was sharp but never vindictive. The candidates expressed their own plans (loosely), they critiqued each other’s records and ideas, highlighting differences among them; but their mutual respect seemed unanimous. The moderator, Anderson Cooper, generally asked questions with substance and relevance for the American people (Hillary Clinton’s emails aside). The debate was informative and….civilized. I came away with clear pictures of what the candidates wanted to do on key issues: gun control; the Middle East and military involvement; climate change; Social Security, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act; Wall Street; crime; social justice; immigration; and women’s rights.
The contrast between this debate and the Republican one a few weeks ago could not be more stark. The Democratic candidates spoke civilly to each other. They were generally truthful in their pronouncements. They informed the audience of their perspectives and their differences. They shared their ideals for the country. They focused on substantive issues that we all care about—identifying existing problems and suggesting ways forward to address them. The passions these Democratic candidates exhibited had to do with their ideas about how to move the country forward, not about their antagonisms to individuals, competitors, or groups (like Planned Parenthood, which has become an underserved whipping post for the Republican Party).
After listening to all candidates, I find myself still torn between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. That Hillary has the experience, intelligence, and inclination to lead is without doubt. I consider also the fact that she would be our first woman President; that is worth something to me as a feminist. Although she is a little too much ‘establishment’ for my taste, a little too moderate, I could very easily live with her as President.
I knew little about Bernie Sanders until this campaign began, but I have received his regular pronouncements on Facebook and have been increasingly impressed. He focuses on issues of social justice, and his ideas about how to reduce the disparities that so severely plague us these days speak to me. My own substantive inclinations are closer to his than to Hillary’s.
But Hillary may have a greater chance at beating the Republicans in the general election. This is at least the common view. Given the purported American hostility to the idea of ‘Socialism’ and Bernie Sanders’ explicit espousal of elements thereof, this view may be correct. Yet, his campaign has gained momentum from the very beginning. He urges the American people to rise up and join him, to fight back against injustices, to require our government to address inequity and iniquity. And he is raising money from ‘the little people’, not from the industrial magnates and lobbies. I find his goals consistent with my own. But ultimately we must have a candidate who can beat the Republicans. Seeing the two debates, one after the other, has made that ever clearer. The Republican candidates, without exception, express views that would be dangerous for the world, for the American people, and for generations to come.
The debate precipitated an upswing in my mood about politics.
This morning brought me back to reality—the downswing. The headline on the front page of The New York Times, a newspaper that many Republicans consider the PR wing of the Democratic Party, was ‘Hillary Clinton Turns Up Heat on Bernie Sanders in a Sharp Debate’. Although the article, if read in full, gives a more accurate and balanced portrayal of what transpired, many readers will stop at the headline. The authors, Michael Barbaro and Amy Chozick, go on to outline many of the issues discussed, concluding that the discussion “…was thick with foreign and domestic policy concerns, rather than the personal insults and colorful exchanges that have characterized the Republican forums.” But the slighting of Bernie Sanders’ campaign and debate status are clear. It sounds as though he wasn’t able to respond, when in fact, he was; Hillary’s ‘seat’ was just as hot as Bernie’s. Bernie Sanders had included the ‘corporate media’ among those causing problems in the American political system; one can easily imagine that this headline is a mini-payback for his remark. In my case, at least, and probably for anyone who actually listened to the debate, it backfired—reducing my respect for the NYT, reminding me of the dangers and power of biased media. A related fear comes from the fact that we have allowed our media to be owned by a very small number of corporations, which now have inordinate power to influence the news we receive. We used to have laws against such near-monopolies. It’s time to bring those laws back!
So…the political beat goes on. American politics is not dull.