Opinion: First debate the first step in the right direction

Ocotober 01, 2008
By Armando Vega
Staff Writer

I might surprise some colleagues of mine by saying this, but here goes: I thought Friday’s presidential debate was quite good.

To be sure, I’m encamped among those who think it’s unfortunate that our presidential debates not only aren’t more substantive (though this one seemed certainly more so than past debates), but what substance there is, is often given much lower priority than the style and character displayed by the candidates on television.  In an age and space where trashy reality TV is the norm and Sarah Palin can be seriously proffered as a Vice-Presidential candidate, it’s difficult to maintain the same perennial indignation at our two-dimensional campaign process.       

In a piece in the Los Angeles Times, Jesse Kornbluth writes on how the debate process could be tweaked to make it better—to capture more viewers and get to the truth of a matter more easily.  My favorite point was on the follow-through; that moderators should press a question on a candidate if that candidate seems to have tried to evade or dodge the question rather than answering it up front.  “Who decides that?  The audience.  Install keypad voting devices at every seat so the good citizens in the studio audience can signal when they are satisfied that a candidate has answered the question…freeze the debate on one issue until a majority is ready to move on.”

But that progressive quality—the perpetual self-questioning of “How do we improve this process, how do we make this work better?” no longer seems so prevalent in this country.  It’s like ever since the '60s--with the shocks of the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers and MLK, Vietnam and Watergate and the roiling social plane—a deep cynicism and skepticism of government, indeed of our very ideals, has clamped down on the American spirit, like a parasitic remnant which refuses to let go.  Just take a look around.  We’re still electing Presidents largely on the basis of the culture wars which first began in earnest in that tumultuous period.

That’s one of the reasons I liked this debate so much.  None of those cultural issues were even brought up.  America is in too dire of straits for presidential elections to be hinging on abortion and gay rights right now.  There’s no question in my mind that on substance, Obama won, but that McCain performed ably, if not in discussing the financial crisis then certainly on foreign policy.

On the $700 billion bailout now before Congress for example, Obama said he could support the plan, but that additional measures were needed to ensure: oversight, that the funds be paid back, that none go to CEOs, and that homeowners be assisted as well.  He also attacked the Republican philosophy on markets, that “basically says that we can shred regulations and consumer protections and give more and more to the most, and somehow prosperity will trickle down.”

McCain’s response to the question was…well I’m still not sure.  Honestly.  Go online and read the transcript of the answer to Jim Lehrer’s first question, and tell me you can come away from John McCain’s first response with any sort of clarity.

It was also a bit ridiculous for McCain to complain about “$3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana,” and not bat an eye at Senator Obama’s reminder that the war in Iraq has cost taxpayers over $600 billion…and counting.

Initial polling—and as of this writing it is still too early to say for sure what effect the debates have had on the broader electoral tendencies—suggests that Obama performed more favorably, according to viewers.  Let us all hope that such recent signs of even modest voter maturation end up holding true.