Four Letter Words

I was rooting for Howard Dean to get the Democratic nomination. Not because I'd vote for him, and not because I think Bush would easily beat him either, but simply because Howard Dean was willing to talk about whether the U.S.'s bold new doctrine is correct. Our country could have had a substantive debate.

I disagree with Pat Buchanan just as much, but at least he can say what he believes without apology. His recent post on Hardblogger is quite an eloquent condemnation of what we've watched on TV the last several days:

Why does what Kerry says determine whether or not the country can have a real debate about an issue?

By "real debate", do you mean a substantive discussion of the issues by presidential candidates in their campaign speeches?

I'm afraid you'll be waiting a long time for that kind of a "real debate".

Campaign speeches are about making people feel good about voting for the candidate; not about debating candidates' philosophical positions.

If a candidate thinks he can gain votes by criticizing his opponent's expressed position, then he'll do it; but you're much more likely to hear an emotional appeal than a substantive investigation of important principles.

If you want a real debate, you'll have to have it somewhere else.

I wrote this before Kerry himself gave his speech, so I wasn't referring to Kerry per se. I was referring to the whole Democratic Convention.

Dean was willing to address the issue of the war head on, and state the opposing position, at least in outline. I'm not saying he would have himself offered much more than emotional appeals, but at least people would have known his basic position! Then voters could discuss the two positions as a real alternative to each other, having debates among themselves. As it stands, Kerry is not truly representing his own side's position on the war.

Democrats decided that candidates like Dean were less electable than candidates like Kerry. They're probably right.

When you're explicit, you're more likely to lose potential voters who disagree with you. When you're ambiguous, you can often manage to sound positive and have people who disagree with each other both think you're on their side.

Generally, politicians don't want to educate people, or improve knowledge of a subject. At least, that's usually a much lower priority for them than acquiring power is.

I agree. And that's the tragedy. Normally I don't hold it hugely against them when it's trivial issues, though I still mind it. But this is the fundamental question of our time, and the Democratic Convention won't let itself talk about it.