That Was A Fun Debate. Now How About More? And One On Climate

We’ve spoken here before about the benefits that more debates would provide to each presidential candidate (even Hillary Clinton) and the Democratic Party as a whole. Many of those advantages were played out last week, with a debate drastically different than the Republican ones, where Democrats sparred in a congenial, yet passionate manner on policy disagreements. It benefited everyone (well, except maybe Lincoln Chafee), and still managed to provide plenty of entertainment (and a great SNL skit).

Progressives were likely particularly pleased that the debate focused heavily on specific policy issues important to them, and less on the personality clashes that beset the Republican field. And the real impact there wasn’t simply firing up the base, but projecting Democrats’ policy points to the rest of the nation.

Take, for example, this exchange Hillary Clinton had on paid family medical leave:

BASH: Carly Fiorina, the first female CEO of a Fortune 50 company, argues, if the government requires paid leave, it will force small businesses to, quote, “hire fewer people and create fewer jobs.” What do you say not only to Carly Fiorina, but also a small-business owner out there who says, you know, I like this idea, but I just can’t afford it?

CLINTON: Well, I’m surprised she says that, because California has had a paid leave program for a number of years. And it’s…

BASH: It’s on the federal level.

CLINTON: Well, but all — well, on a state level, a state as big as many countries in the world. And it has not had the ill effects that the Republicans are always saying it will have. And I think this is — this is typical Republican scare tactics. We can design a system and pay for it that does not put the burden on small businesses.

I remember as a young mother, you know, having a baby wake up who was sick and I’m supposed to be in court, because I was practicing law. I know what it’s like. And I think we need to recognize the incredible challenges that so many parents face, particularly working moms.

I see my good friend, Senator Gillibrand, in the front row. She’s been a champion of this. We need to get a consensus through this campaign, which is why I’m talking about it everywhere I go, and we need to join the rest of the advanced world in having it.

Clinton then transitioned that answer to one of her best moments of the night, in which she vigorously defended Planned Parenthood against Republicans attacks.

Besides the applause it brought Clinton, this kind of interaction is exactly what helps Democrats as a party. The debate moderator offered up a Republican’s criticism of a key policy Democrats are pushing hard on this year, and Clinton effectively countered it with the California example and offered a personal and emotional appeal as to why paid family medical leave is so important. Sanders jumped in afterwards to compare America’s paid leave laws with the rest of the world, and O’Malley piped in with his experience of actually expanding paid leave in Maryland.

This is what used to happen a lot in 2007 and 2008 when both Republicans and Democrats held a debate nearly every week (admittedly, too many). Republicans would propose some extremely conservative ideas or say something crazy at one debate, and Democrats would get a chance to respond a few days later. It was an interesting way for the two parties to have a nationally televised back-and-forth on their issues and values. And Democrats came out the better for it, as hard-right Republican primary candidates provided easy fodder for Democrats to ridicule and tie the whole field to.

But as many have pointed out (including Starting Line often), the six planned Democratic debates simply isn’t enough. And the effect isn’t just in the number of debates, it’s what those limitations cause in the debates that are held. CNN’s Anderson Cooper kept the pace of the first debate swift, quickly moving from topic to topic, with very few candidates ever getting a response more than two minutes long. It’s understandable on the news organization’s part – with so few debate opportunities, you want to get in as many questions on as many issues as possible, since if you don’t ask it now, it may not get answered for months. That limits how in-depth the candidates go on any given topic.

Take climate change for example. Martin O’Malley has put out an extensive plan for a clean energy future that would achieve 100% clean electric energy in the United States by 2050. This was the extent of what he got to say about it in the debate:

O’MALLEY: Anna, I have put forward a plan — and I’m the only candidate, I believe, in either party to do this — to move America forward to a 100 percent clean electric grid by 2050.

We did not land a man on the moon with an all-of-the-above strategy. It was an intentional engineering challenge, and we solved it as a nation. And our nation must solve this one.

So I put forward the plan that would extend the investor tax credits for solar and for wind. If you go across Iowa, you see that 30 percent of their energy now comes from wind. We’re here in Las Vegas, one of the most sustainable cities in America, doing important things in terms of green building, architecture and design.

We can get there as a nation, but it’s going to require presidential leadership. And as president, I intend to sign as my very first order in office the — an order that moves us as a nation and dedicates our resources to solving this problem and moving us to a 100 percent clean electric grid by 2050.

O’Malley got in some good points, but there’s a whole lot more that could be added to that discussion – the dangers America faces if it doesn’t act, the details of the advances wind and solar have made in recent years, a criticism of the ridiculous climate-denying the Republican candidates engage in, and the full breadth of the economic benefits such plans would bring.

A number of major voices on the progressive side of politics have called for more debates, recently focusing in on the need for specific policy debates. NextGen Climate Action even took out a major ad buy recently to promote the idea.

“By adding a debate focused exclusively on climate change and clean energy solutions, the candidates will be able debate the best ways to transition our country to a clean energy economy, articulate, defend and refine their plans to achieve #50by30—and ensure they are ready on day one to address this issue,” NextGen’s Tom Steyer said in a press release recently.

On no other issue like climate change has the facts, opportunities and policy positions changed as much in the last eight years, all of which ought to see a full, in-depth discussion in front a national TV audience. That won’t happen as much as it could under the DNC’s debate rules, nor will it occur for many other important progressive priorities. If Democrats are serious this year about building public support for new policies, some more debates, starting with one focused on climate change, would be a great place to start.

by Pat Rynard
Posted 10/19/15