Democratic Debate, Cleveland ’08: Silence Speaking Volumes

I promised a review of last evening’s Democratic debate written from the perspective of one who paid close attention to what the candidate’s would not say. Last night’s was the 20th debate in which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have participated in this primary season, and I was confident in knowing what to expect from them both. The primary focus of the discussion so far has focused on three main issues; 1) the economy generally, 2) the war in Iraq, and 3) health care. The issues of health care and the economy can effectively be considered as one issue for the purposes of this discussion, leaving us with two primary issues; the Economy, and Iraq. The candidates have clearly established where they stand on these issues, and, in doing so, have revealed that they stand in quite similar places. In contrast, the differences between Democrats and Republicans on these issues have rarely been starker. For instance, last night, Obama dismissed presumptive Republican nominee John McCain’s chances in the general election because McCain has “tethered himself to Bush on Iraq and the Economy.” In view of these differences, it is clear that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will eventually have to answer a number of important, simple, and obvious questions raised by their positions on these issues, many being subquestions raised by the broader questions of exactly what it mean to be tethered to Bush on Iraq and the economy and, why is it a bad thing to be so tethered. We all understand that there are, and will always be, problems in the world, and it is easy for the candidates to point to these problems, as they so often do. But what a worthy candidate must do is explain to us why we would be any better off against these problems with that candidate's own policies in place. I realize that it is an article of faith for many people that, whatever it means, it is bad to be “tethered to” President Bush on Iraq, the economy, or anything else. But there are a great many people who don’t believe this, or at least admit that they are unsure. These are the people that the Democratic nominee will have to address to win the general election.

In the debates that I had watched previous to last night’s, neither candidate had substantively addressed questions about their differences with Republicans. With Hillary on the ropes, with the Ohio and Texas primaries looming as the decisive battles in this primary, and with the candidates’ positions on the main issues having been made as clear as they would ever be with respect to one another, we had reason to expect something different last night. Electability is always an issue in primary campaigns – indeed, it was seemingly the dominant issue in McCain’s victory over Mitt Romney. Last night presented a tremendous opportunity for each nominee; Barack could have landed a decisive knockout punch, and last night might have been Hillary’s last best chance to resuscitate her flailing campaign. Last night we might have rightly expected one or both of the candidates to explain why one is more likely than the other to beat John McCain in November by explaining how they would address Mr. McCain’s positions on the issues. Last night, neither candidate did this. Instead we saw the same old story; Barack continued to sell “hope,” while Hillary peddled “experience.” It is nothing short of remarkable that neither candidate even approached discussing where they differ with Republicans in any substantive way.

At the very least, the candidates’ silence last evening on their differences with Republicans raises serious questions beyond those about the issues themselves. We must ask what it means that the applicants for “the most important job in the world” did not discuss these differences on such a big stage, at such a crucial time. Surely the questions raised by this silence are many, and some of them complicated. Here I will suggest only one: Why shouldn’t an independent-minded voter interpret the Democratic nominees’ silence on their differences with Republicans as indicative of moral and/or intellectual bankruptcy with respect to these differences? In other words, why should we take this silence as anything other than a reason to distrust these nominees on these crucial issues? Understanding that a discussion of the issues is necessary to even begin answering this question, I will lay out a roadmap of the questions raised by these issues below. These are the questions that any worthy President must be able to answer. These were the questions that were not so much as approached by the candidates last night. To the extent that these questions have been answered by the Democratic candidates in the past – please, fill me in. Please, let's have the discussion that we did not have last night.

Issue #1 -- The Economy: Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama: A staple of your campaigns, a common staple of a great number of political campaigns, is the heartbreaking tale of the individual unfortunate American. Hillary used her final statement last evening to discuss the plight of “a mother in Lorain.” Obama has spoken at length about unemployed factory workers in Youngstown, and promised us that as president he will “give people the chances they deserve to have.” We knew that you would both tell us stories about unfortunate Americans last evening. We all, generally, feel bad for these folks. Relatedly, we all feel bad for those who need health care but do not have access to it. Large groups of people share a number of sharply contrasting ideas as to how to minimize these problems. The existence of this contrast was not apparent in last night's discussion.

1. We know that Republicans and Democrats alike would rather not have factories close and would rather not, generally, see people suffer. It is obvious that both parties have different ideas as to the best way to minimize this suffering. Republicans favor a free market system, Democrats favor government intervention and forced income redistribution. Why is forced income redistribution generally preferable to a free market? It can't be because certain individuals suffer. Suffering has existed since the beginning of time, and will surely continue to exist as long as humans do. Surely you can’t be suggesting that the existence of some unfortunate cases means that we are all generally worse off, are you? Isn’t that “making the perfect the enemy of the good” in a very real sense?

2. If you admit that we will never be able to eliminate all suffering, don’t you have to at least pay lip service to the question of why “more redistribution” is a better policy than “a freer market.” There is at least some evidence out there that proves that forced income redistribution is a policy disaster (see, generally, the former U.S.S.R.). There is also an argument to be made that the United States is the most well off/powerful country in the world because it’s markets are the freest. Adam Smith, Tocqueville, and others have made this argument persuasively, and as far as I know, it has not been disproven (many smart folks still read and teach from the books these guys wrote). Even Hillary Clinton seems to understand this, or at least once did, when she supported NAFTA. Why, Mr. Obama, do you conclusorily attack her for this? I can trust the Republicans stance on this because it makes sense to me. If you, as you say, plan to take more money away from some Americans, and give it to others, can you explain to me why we should trust you to do so, over the Republicans, who at least pitch us a coherent narrative regarding incentives, and the benefits of freer markets? (Was the word "incentive" uttered by either candidate last night? Hmmm.)

3. Relatedly, Mr. Obama, is it possible for you to explain just how you will “give people the chances they deserve to have”? While you’re at it, would you be so kind as to tell us how you know just who it is that deserves just what chances? You give us some clue as to who you think deserves what when you rail against “job killing” policies, and factories closing in America to open up elsewhere. You rail against exports, you rail against “special interests,” and, Mr. Obama, you claim that you “will be an advocate for workers.” This raises another set of questions:

4. It is Economics 101 that we are generally better off when the producer of any given product is the one who can produce that product the cheapest and the fastest. This frees up other resources for better use. Can we at least discuss Economics 101 before we make you President? Economics 101 makes sense to us. The Republicans seem to understand; that if a factory closes because someone else can run that same factory better somewhere else, then we might not want policies to allow factories to reopen where they failed because someone could do it better. Of course it is hard for the people who lose their jobs at any given time, but isn't this a necessity of a dynamic economy in a world of scarce resources? Isn’t there good reason to suggest that the people who formerly worked in these factories would more productive if they worked at something else? Wouldn’t the whole world be better off if they did so? If not, why not?

5. Also, what’s wrong with exports? I like getting stuff from other countries that I can’t get here. I even pay more for it because I can’t get it here. Presumably people in other countries feel the same way. If I made stuff that people in other countries wanted, I would like to export it to them. Why is this bad?

6. Finally, if you “will be an advocate for workers,” Mr. Obama, will you share with us your definition of what a “worker” is? Almost every adult American can be said to "work" at something. Is the "worker" that you are concerned about any more worthy of Americans’ earned resources than folks who work at any of a number of things, for instance, folks who invent things that make our lives better (like cures for diseases, or new ways to take care of ourselves)? What about folks who run businesses that make our lives easier and more enjoyable? If certain “workers” are less worthy of your advocacy than others, can you tell us why, and to what extent?

The Republicans stance on the economy, generally, whether right or wrong, makes at least some sense to me, and others. Unless you can answer the above questions, your stance on the economy will continue to make no sense to me, and I will not be able to vote for you.

Issue #2 -- Iraq: Dear Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton, as you might know, the issue of Iraq is inextricably bound with the broader issue of the Economy at large. As such, your answers to our questions about the economy will go a long way toward helping us understand your positions on Iraq. In view of the relation between the issues, our questions about Iraq are more specific. One of the easiest predictions we could have made before last nights debate would have been that Mr. Obama would tell us that “he was right about Iraq from the beginning,” and that Ms. Clinton would tell us that, in hindsight, she would reverse her Senatorial vote in support of the War in Iraq. Neither candidate began to approach a discussion of the reasons for their position. Obviously, this raises questions:

1. Also obvious is that people generally feel quite strongly about the War. Relatedly, people generally dislike human combat, death, and the resulting human suffering. Regardless of one’s position on the War in Iraq, or wars in general, doesn’t one have to at least acknowledge the possibility that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the millions who supported and still support this war have a good faith reason for doing so?

2. To elaborate on this good faith reason: There is an argument to be made that promoting democracy is the only credible strategy in the war on terror. Relatedly, there is an argument that removing Saddam Hussein was the most logical way to plant the seed of Democracy in the place where it would have the most positive impact (For more info follow this link to the Chief Source and scroll down to post titled "Our Oil Under Their Sand"). Put another way, there is a good reason to view the US decision to depose Saddam as a worthy act of pre-emptive global hygiene by ridding the middle east of a murderous megalomaniac who 1) gassed, terrorized, tortured, and killed hundreds of thousands of people, 2) provided untold levels of support for terrorists, including the harboring of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, 3) flagrantly violated UN resolutions, tossing out UN weapons inspectors, 4) invaded Kuwait, 5) attacked Iran, 6) plotted to kill a former American President, 7) retained the infrastructure and desire for making WMD, 8) bribed the leaders of France, Russia and other countries with UN subsidies designated to feed his people, and 9) “harbored a grudge against the United States that could have played out in many ways to harm Americans.” In view of this reasonable justification for the War, can either of you explain why you did not, and or if you could go back in time would not, support the War “from the beginning”?

3. Relatedly, if one accepts the good faith reasons for going into Iraq, one must also accept that the attempt to remove one of the world’s most brutal dictators to plant democracy in the heart of the Middle East is an attempt at one of the, if not the, greatest feat of social engineering that any nation has ever undertaken. This feat would necessarily take years to accomplish. As such, would it not take at least a decade before we can begin to fully understand or at least generally agree upon the broad consequences of this decision? How, at this point in time, is it possible for anyone to say with a straight face that he “was right about Iraq from the beginning?” How is it possible for anyone to evaluate the truth of this claim? Every time you "elaborated" on your reasons for your position on Iraq last evening, you did not help to answer these questions, but rather only raised further questions. For instance:

4. You say that the War in Iraq has not made us safer. Why is this so? Were we safer at 8AM e.s.t. on the morning of 9/11/01 than we are today? Is it not true that attacks on American interests, both at home, and globally, have been substantially less in the years since we deposed Saddam than in the years before?

5. Mr. Obama, you admit that “if Al-Qaeda was forming a base in Iraq” that it would be worth intervening there. But Al-Qaeda is in Iraq right now. Further, why is an Al-Qaeda base in Iraq any more dangerous than Saddam, who had direct control of billions of dollars of oil revenue and repeatedly demonstrated his intent and ability to use this money to harm Americans and American interest? Al-Qaeda quite obviously has nothing approaching the resources that Saddam had at his disposal. Surely they are both bad, but isn’t Saddam worse?

6. Finally, Mr. Obama, you claim that you will be, as America needs, “a champion for the ‘small man’ in the White House.” Is there anyone in America who is “smaller” than the person in Iraq who lived under Saddam’s boot? Who is smaller than the man who is tied up and forced to watch Saddam’s sons and their friends rape his wife and daughters? Weren’t these people all, generally, worse off than any American? If so, then isn’t President Bush more of a “champion for the small man” than you are? If not, then why not?

In sum, Mr. Obama, it seems dishonest when you say that you were right from the beginning about such a complex issue, about which it is probably impossible to know who is “right” or “wrong.” It makes me distrust you. It seems even worse when you do not put effort into explaining why you are and/or were right about this issue, especially when, as last night against Ms. Clinton who did once support the war, you have a great incentive to. The Republicans tell a coherent story about Iraq. Right or wrong, I can at least understand a coherent set of interlocking reasons as to why America might be there, and why people, both here and in Iraq, want us to stay there. I do not understand your story about Iraq. I do not understand why you want America to abandon this grand and quite possibly necessary social experiment now, after we have devoted so many resources to its success, and are finally seeing demonstrable progress. Until you answer the above questions about Iraq, I will not begin to be able to understand your position on the issue, and I will not be able to vote for you.

As stated above, the democratic candidate’s silence as to the answers to these important, simple, and obvious questions serves only to breed mistrust among many (if not most) independent-minded Americans in the candidates’ positions on these issues. Again, I am forced to wonder whether the candidates’ failure to even discuss answers to these questions in last night’s debate could be a result of anything other than an inability to address them with clarity, or at least as much clarity as the Republicans discuss these issues with. I do not ask this because I think that any given American who is not running for or voting for a President is “right” or “wrong” to ask, or to not ask these questions; or to ask or answer a whole set of different questions. I ask because it is a fact that these questions are shared, in some significant part, by a substantial portion of our fellow citizens – at least close to 50% of us if the results of the last few elections are any indication. As such, we will not only understand our leaders better by discussing potential answers to these questions, we will understand each other better. By understanding each other better through this discussion, we will then be in a position to demand and secure more effective leadership.

Update: Welcome Keeler Report readers!

Update: Welcome Chief Source readers!

Update: Dan Henninger nails it in today's Wall Street Journal: "Hillary's politics is the world of Eleanor Roosevelt, when it was all being born anew. The Washington of LBJ's Great Society in the mid-1960s was alive with policy debates -- among Democrats. By now, the Democratic Party's ideas are largely generic. Everyone noticed that the Democratic presidential candidates were largely singing from the same script. Health care, public schools, green energy, the eternal shafting of the middle class, the unions, protecting Social Security and Medicare. This common script means that the Democratic primaries are largely an audition. The candidates are reading for a role. The lines are known.

The part, however, is challenging. The Democratic platform may be familiar, but it is also infused with the quality of a dream. Actually, the word "dream" gets used a lot in Democratic rhetoric. What are essentially bureaucratic arrangements, such as health insurance or after-school programs, are promised as "universal." Meanwhile, "the middle class" is being offered a version of never-never land -- total public protection from the traps and betrayals of the private sector, which has been reduced to a kind of Grimm's Fairy Tale abstraction, the wolves.
If you are selling a dream you need the best possible salesman to make it seem somehow possible. They found him in Barack Obama."