The Debates: Many Cooks, No Recipe
by Robert Russo
Politicians are like wild animals; the campaign trail "domesticates" them. A wild animal placed in captivity loses its natural instincts to a life of thievery. When it's easier to take food from someone else's mouth than find your own, an animal starts tracking its neighbors ignoring the food it's been given. This is the start of cannibalism. It was presumed that last night's Democratic debate would be a feeding frenzy against Hillary Clinton, each challenger hoping to be her running mate this time next year. The Republican debates have been posted several times because they included Ron Paul, so let's talk about the democrats.
At least five of the candidates are running just to be in the debates. That is as far as they will go. With each election year starting sooner than the last, it has become a platform for their local objectives and notoriety (Obama owing his office in part to his speech at John Kerry's convention), and things that have nothing to do with the presidency. Whatever is said on a national stage will be remembered far longer and by more people than any local issue. Saying you want to be president has become par for the course in wanting to surpass in state politics. (This is not to say the desire of any candidate to be president is insincere and that an underdog shouldn't do his best among frontrunners, nor that he can't win by the people's choice as it should be. It is not to say we Libertarians don't see the debates as our goal and an accomplishment that will transform our party in the public eye, but this is their game. The major parties invented this cockamamie system. They've even streamlined next year's Super Tuesday into "Giga Tuesday", winner take all.)*
It's a strange fate that YouTube, which was not the first "funny videos" site by far, has been launched to Ebay-like immortality as the next public portal to the debates (in the fashion of the first televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon). I predict it won't last. A year from now we'll remember it as a debate with a gimmick, absurd at times, like the animated segments introduced to the academy awards where characters interact with live actors. A new, hip format is not necessarily in good taste, but in this case it was the venue through which the public voice cannot be stopped, and must be reckoned with, breaking through a stagnant political pond where it is seldom heard anymore.
In spite of the forecast the debate was quite civil, which raises the question is a bunch of democrats patting each other on the back any more helpful than bickering? A caller making each candidate turn and describe the person on their left is indeed a genius, but poking a pig with a fork what can one expect to hear but a squeal? They all agree on the same basic tenets, and are showcasing only their different personalities in reaching the same goal, to elect a democrat. New and interesting questions don't make it a real choice. The most a libertarian in the audience could accomplish would be to put a candidate on the spot he has no intention of voting for.
It's so odd to see them trying to look cool on their websites and videos. If they want to be hip, why not actually bring some new issues to the discussion? Hillary's video of her sitting in mostly silence, telling Bill she's looking out for his health, hearing that he likes Smashmouth,** is deemed more politically valuable than talking about the myriad subjects that have never been voiced in a debate, the myriad groups that have never been heard. Educators, coal miners, gun owners, steelworkers, people with autism have generations-old issues and are still waiting. Ron Paul crams as much as he can when it's his turn to speak. A moderate is not an alternative to the current administration nor an undoing of its mistakes. Coverage and responses to the debate are thumbnailed at http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/07/23/crowley.debate.wrap.cnn.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Duper_Tuesday
**http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BEPcJlz2wE
Question of the Week: If you are against Bush, the war or incumbency itself, and a renegade republican like Ron Paul doesn't pass the primaries, will you vote for a Democrat? If so, who? Send your thoughts to henrico@richmondliberty.org.
If you have topics of interest to Libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input!