Last week’s Democratic debate in Las Vegas again demonstrated the dangers inherent in this cast of characters. The candidates have become well skilled at the deceptions necessary to get elected. Yet, in deploying these skills they make clear how completely unsuitable they are for the job they seek.
The debate answers were based on stock tactics. When there is nothing to say, beat up on Bush, or Cheney, or the neocons, even though few if any in the audience could
actually define "neocon." Establish rapport with the audience, getting it to identify with you by simply enumerating the problems they face. That is, demonstrate you know how bad things are, cite statistics that nobody can verify, show that you recognize the problems of the common man so the audience will assume that since you seem to care, happy days are here again.
When drawing a blank, scream about Halliburton, Guantanamo, habeas corpus, the Constitution, and special interests. When in really desperate straits, just mention the dirty word "corporation" and the audience will revive you. If really losing it, find something to get mad about. Senator Dodd beat up on "No Child Left Behind"; Representative Kucinich called for impeachment. Also, tell the audience what it wants to hear and it will be hard pressed to disagree. Finally, as James Carville has stated, "Nothing validates a candidate to voters as much as other voters." Senator Clinton was not hesitant to stake out her claim as being "ahead" to reinforce the notion, and the audience fell into line and immediately began to treat her as such again.
Non-answers were the common currency. Clinton responded to a question as to whether there is a "boys' club" in typical fashion by having an initial sentence that sounded like she was about to address it (in this case referencing "impediments" to women), only to move the entire focus elsewhere (about how proud she is to be running). Senator Obama stunningly gave the same type of doublespeak answer to the driver's license question for which he had previously chastised Clinton.
None of them could address at all where to dispose of nuclear waste, a big issue in Nevada where the Yucca Mountain storage site is located. Obama said he is for developing a technological answer - when, how, and where is left to fantasy. He repeatedly stressed that if he is our leader and we all remain optimistic, we will develop solutions to this as well as climate change. Governor Bill “I’ll still kiss Hillary’s asbestos pantsuit to be VP” Richardson also finally suggested turning Yucca Mountain into a lab to develop a technical solution. Somehow that is supposed to tell the waste disposal fellows where to drop off there load?
The "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes" move was also evident. Questions about Clinton's duplicitous responses at the prior debate were revisited by former Senator John Edwards. Edwards legitimately listed examples (Social Security, driver's licenses for illegals, the Iraq war, change, Peru trade) where Clinton said one thing and then said the opposite. Clinton responded by accusing Edwards of "mud-throwing", a “Republican” tactic at that, and called for a positive plan for America, not only avoiding the entire issue but eliciting strong applause. Of course, Richardson added that we should stop the character assassinations and be positive. (It was his birthday, but only Hillary wanted to help celebrate.)
One of the most often employed and seriously dangerous moves was the call for commissions, committees, conferences, and all other groups that utilize a "table" upon which to place issues. Clinton called for a bi-partisan committee on Social Security. With NAFTA, she said we need a timeout and then to regroup to figure things out. We also need to bring teachers "to the table" in order to figure out what to do with them. Isn't the time to figure things out BEFORE you sell yourself as the most experienced and qualified for the job? This from a woman who figured out her position on illegals' driver's licenses by taking both sides and listening to which received the loudest opposition.
This is particularly distressing coming from this group of professional legislators (excepting Richardson). These senators and congessmen exert significant influence upon the most powerful bi-partisan commission of all - the U.S. Congress. Far from accomplishing great diplomatic feats there, they have helped render the Congress fully impotent to address any of the serious issues that face us today. If they can not bring together the Congress, how can we expect them to be able to bring America together with Iran or North Korea, or even our questionable "allies" such as Russia and China?
Perhaps the most startling sleights of mind in the debate, however, arose when policy towards Pakistan was raised. When questioned whether human rights were more important than our national security, Richardson actually replied affirmatively. He then stated that democracy and human rights should be our focus there and comforted us that, since only 15% of Pakistanis are extremists, a fair election should bring about a democratic result that would render the world safe. Obama piped in that democracy in Pakistan would strengthen our position against the extremists. (For the record, Dodd pointed out that an election would likely lead to a disastrous result with an 85% Islamist success). Clinton pointed out that there is a real connection between a democratically elected regime in Pakistan and heightened security for us (which she apparently believes is a policy epiphany.) These were the best policy recommendations this group could come up with.
Isn't this precisely what the "neocons" stand for? Isn't the heart of the Bush Doctrine the notion that facilitating democracies, in the full sense of the word, in the Middle East and in other troubled areas is our best strategy for long term peace and security? Isn't this the basis of Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy that so influenced Bush? Isn't this, whether true in the beginning or not, one of the key explanations given for the Iraq war? Only this group can, with a straight face, attack Bush and Cheney and all the "neocons" while advocating pure neocon principles. Perhaps there are more fools than those on the stage after all.
