The Second Debate

August 2, 2019: Two more nights of debates did little to either clarify the Democratic presidential field or burnish the Party’s image. The biggest disappointment, perhaps, was Kamala Harris, who bounded out of the opening debate as a potential front-runner but seemed strangely out of it last night. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn she was sick; but for whatever reason, the fire she displayed in taking on Biden at their first encounter was missing.

One does look forward to a reduced field of debaters. While all the one-percenters have now had their moment in the sun, they are increasingly becoming a distraction to the business at hand. We need to see Biden on the same stage with Warren and Buttigieg, and we can do without the interruptions of DeBlasio and Delaney. Yang and Williamson have made interesting contributions, but there is not much more for them to say. Similarly, Inslee and Gabbard represent important issues – climate change and foreign policy, respectively – but their one notes haven’t translated into broad support. Bennett and Ryan come across as marginal nuisances. We’re stuck with O’Rourke because of his early success, but he looks increasingly out of his depth. Even ten next time may be too many.

Two things bothered me in both debates. One was the debate moderators and two was how the Democrats went along with the moderators’ agenda. The crew from CNN, led by Jake Tapper, seemed intent on generating fights among the candidates. “He said this about you…How do you respond?” was a common form of question. And the first 30-45 minutes was devoted, mind-dumbingly, to parsing each candidate’s health-care proposal. (Even more off-putting was the constant badgering – “Thank you, Senator; thank you, Senator” – when an answer ran over the time limit. Either the time allotted by debate rules was too short, or there should be a better way of cutting off the speaker: maybe add five seconds then cut the mike.)

For their part, the Democrats did themselves no favor by attacking each other’s plans. The audience would neither understand nor particularly believe the arguments being made, but – as more than one noted – the Republicans will only be too happy to repeat the arguments: $30 trillion; 10 years; losing your present insurance, etc. The smarter response for all the candidates would have been to push back against the question and say, “Look, we have different ideas on how to get there, but we all agree that health insurance must be available to all, at an affordable cost; that the cost of prescription drugs must come down and that health insurers and pharmaceutical companies no longer take billions of dollars in profits at the expense of the voters. And let’s compare that to President Trump and the Republicans who are actively trying to gut the ACA and take away health insurance for millions of people, have totally failed to come up with the better plan they promised, and have been in the pocket of insurance company and pharmaceutical company lobbyists.” That would have made the debate more tolerable to watch and would have highlighted a Democratic strength, instead of making them look small.