Team Democrat

The recent presidential debate gave us a chance, finally, to see all the Democratic candidates on the same stage, defining their positions and their differences. Although I’m pretty sure already who I’m voting for, I’m not sure it was possible to declare a clear debate winner. If you viewed this as an undecided, which I’ve tried to some extent to do, Hillary was good but clearly well-rehearsed while Sanders was himself but not rock solid. The other three candidates, Chafee, Webb, and O’Malley, had their strengths and weaknesses in varying measure. But there was no big moment, no knockout punch. I came away thinking that adherents of different flavors of “left” would come to different conclusions about who did best.

But although there was no decisive victory for any one candidate, the debate gave us a chance to look at some options, displaying more diversity than might have been expected among five members of the same political party. To our benefit, this played out in some marked differences of opinion and a few strange bedfellows.

Who, for instance, would have expected that gun control would have proved to be such a bugaboo for Sanders? As a senator from a rural state, he’s got people at home who don’t want anyone messing with their guns; interestingly, this put him in the same corner as Jim Webb. So even though he’s characterized as an arch progressive (“socialist”) by the media, his views on gun control are considered dubious by many leftists. Sanders’ explanation of his voting record made sense to me, to the extent that I understand it, but it was too nuanced for liberals and gun control activists. Once he fumbled that one, it almost didn’t matter what the other candidates said, although in the end, it’s unlikely Sanders’ views differ that much from Clinton’s. They would both limit access to guns.

Anderson Cooper, who apparently is fun to make fun of, did a pretty good job keeping the debate going and had no trouble asking probing questions on uncomfortable topics. Hillary got a few of these questions not surprisingly, and she handled them. The one that lingered for me wasn’t that nonsense about the emails, although there’s plenty to talk about there, but the question about Clinton’s honesty, to wit: do you change your positions with the political winds for expediency? Her answer was a waffly “No” (naturally) but it was plenty waffly.

As for Clinton’s celebrated rogue email account, she got bailed out by, of all people, Bernie Sanders. Telling the audience that Americans are sick and tired of her damn emails was funny and probably even true, but that doesn’t mean she showed the best judgment by trying to keep them off government servers. Sanders let her off easy on that one, but then again, what was there to say about it? In the end, the moment stands and Sanders came out on top simply for taking the moral high road. As for the even higher road, only Chafee was willing to call Clinton on the matter, saying he was still concerned about what this incident says about her sense of ethics (while highlighting his own ethical record, of course).

On domestic issues, Sanders came across as the clear leader simply for making them a priority. He got loud applause on his remarks about income disparity, affordability of college, and healthcare. On these issues, Sanders’ biggest problem seemed to be me-tooism until it became clear that his rivals’ views were quite different even though their overarching goals were ostensibly the same. It was the differences within the similarities that made this such an interesting debate.

Sanders also got some applause for his stance on domestic policing and the Black Lives Matter movement. Webb seemed to be on the wrong side of the issue and knew it, while O’Malley has some baggage from his Baltimore days. Cooper brought out those points and their careful statements on the subject fell apart. Hillary, for her part, said supportive words and her supporters cheered.

Where everyone looked weak (and this is true on the Republican side too) was foreign policy, but even here there were interesting differences. Lincoln Chafee, who came across as the nicest, most principled guy, said that he was anti-war and that that pretty much governed his response to the current goings-on around the world. Webb sounded the most knowledgeable and the least likely to do anything rash, especially from a military standpoint. O’Malley was a hawk on some issues (Iran, for instance) and not so much on others (Iraq). Meanwhile, Clinton stood on her record as Secretary of State (which covers a pretty tumultuous time, if you do happen to look at it), and said that she was proud of her work in Libya, Syria, and elsewhere.

But Sanders, who I was kind of hoping had had time to formulate a plan on foreign affairs, gave the kind of response that, while ostensibly anti-war, went to great lengths to make sure that people knew that he would prosecute any wars he happened to inherit and that he would not shy away from drone attacks if there was a good reason to use them. But in terms of having anything new to say about the conflicts that increasingly traumatize our world, that was not forthcoming. Granted, there is a lot of room between what a guy says to convince voters he’s hawkish enough to become commander-in-chief and what the guy currently occupying that job has said (that he “turns out to be pretty good at killing people”). In short, it’s hard to imagine Sanders ever being that blase about something as grave as blowing whole groups of unknown people to bits, which reassures me somewhat on his nascent drone war policy.

There may not have been any winner in this debate, much as our competitive society loves that sort of thing, but there was a lot of interesting and important discussion on the kind of topics that don’t normally get discussed at the national level. Credit Sanders with moving the party discernibly to the left — people were falling all over themselves to look liberal, even poor hapless Jim Webb. Said Clinton, as if acknowledging her lack of progressive street cred, said “I’m a progressive. But I’m a progressive who likes to get things done.” Ouch. If only we could be convinced she’s really progressive…

Still, it was the ordinary American that was the focus of the discussion–people of all races and creeds, immigrants, students, old people, parents, children–and not just divisive issues such as gay marriage, immigration, and abortion. The Democrats looked almost inclusive, given the platform they were inadvertently hammering out.

The months to come will give candidates a chance to hone their messages, and future debates should find the frontrunners sharper. But I hope some of the back bench stay in a while longer because I learned from hearing the interplay of their views too. In fact, soon after watching the debate, I had the sudden notion that a group presidency might be interesting — not divided up into a cabinet of specialists but with all five of them duking it out on all the issues. This is what I call the Inside Out theory of executive leadership — the job is too big for one guy, we need five! In the case of the five candidates currently running for the Democratic nomination, this would give us a two progressives, a couple of centrists (sorry, Hillary), and one from center-right. What better way to unite and govern a divided nation?

I’m joking, of course. That would be unconsititutional, and frankly, a bit too much like our Selectboard. But all the same, bring on the debates. This kind of thing can only help.