“Debate” Reaction
Crossword puzzle — Debate Reaction
Hope you enjoy solving it!
Commentary
It’s quite common among pundits and political scientists alike to offer previews and recaps of the ritual moments in American elections, with so-called debates being one of those key moments. Because I missed offering a preview, it seems appropriate to post a reaction or response to the August 23 “debate” among some (but not all) of the Republican presidential candidates.
The show presented by Fox was noteworthy for several reasons. It was the first of many scheduled for the 2024 election cycle and it included only those candidates who surpassed the fundraising and polling thresholds set by the Republican National Committee. From the outset, it struck me that Fox used the event to gain journalistic visibility and advertising revenue—its anchors prefaced questions with video and commentary; its logo and branded chyrons seemed never to leave the screen—both somewhat challenged by the fallout from the Dominion lawsuit and by the network’s faltering relationship with Donald Trump. Speaking of Trump, the former president and current front-runner was not physically present in Milwaukee … but his spectre haunted the evening’s performances.
Reluctant to descend fully into rank punditry, I trust that I can make a few worthy observations to put the event in a larger context, to grasp what the debate might portend for US politics in the election year to come.
I often put the d-word in scare quotes (“debate”) because I have long been dissatisfied with the whole enterprise. The format of asking questions of several people on a stage is often worthless for anyone who wants to learn about solutions to social and political problems or discover something about the candidates as decision-makers or moral agents. These “debates” used to seem like joint press conferences, with side-by-side monologues. Things are much worse now, unfortunately. Gone are the days when the dullness of canned sound-bites would be relieved only by the occasional gaffe. These days, we are treated to WWE-like performances spurred by the presence of partisan audiences, free to voice their feelings and prejudices, and the desire of candidates to somehow fashion a Moment for themselves, one that will be replayed endlessly on cable news.
If we look behind and beyond the spectacle, however, we can nevertheless learn something of value about this crop of Republican presidential candidates on at least two fronts. First, we can explore whatever aims the candidates sought and whatever achievements they were able to make. Second, we can gauge the depth and worth of the ideas the candidates offer regarding the issues of our time.
On the first front, it has been obvious for a while that the primary goal for Ron DeSantis was to stop the apparent slide in his fortunes. He needed to use the event as an opportunity to reorient the campaign, quiet his critics, and solidify his status as the main challenger to Trump. Even though post-debate polls of Republican voters had him “winning,” my sense is that he has yet to achieve his key aims. Vivek Ramaswamy, on the other hand, was better able to turn his performance into real gain—for the moment at least. His substantial air time, crowd support, and apparent role as a Trump stand-in will likely help him improve his status in the race. Seeking to raise his visibility while hewing to the Trumpist line, he seemed to understand how to do well in the attention economy upon which contemporary election campaigns are based. With Nikki Haley, Chris Christie, and Mike Pence winning respect for sounding like routine politicians—if not cogent ones—there was little room for any of the others to make the slightest impression.
On the second front, we did at least hear questions about many key issues facing the country (although there was that bit about UFOs). However, most of the “solutions” offered by these Republicans did not go much beyond do something different or simply do better. Specific policies and actions (let alone any clarity on how they would improve our lives) were either left unsaid, despite Haley’s urging for them all to face political realities with regard to abortion. In some cases, the actions suggested were simply beside the point—DeSantis would fire Anthony Fauci (who has already left his government job) and many of his competitors want to install a new Attorney General (as nearly all incoming presidents do). At times, the range of solutions offered did not make sense. Do people really believe that the perils of climate change can be resolved by drilling for more oil, for example, or by changing our trade relationships with China? Is it all that desirable to advance the cause of freedom by abandoning Ukraine to Russia’s imperial desires, even if we can use that money to build a bigger, better wall on the southern border or use the US military to attack Mexican drug cartels?
The most important takeaway from the “debate” for me, though, has nothing to do with either of these matters. What struck me was how the performances and exchanges further revealed the corruption at the heart of the Republican Party and perhaps some elements of the body politic. I speak of corruption here in the political theory sense of a people having lost its moorings. Cut loose from its long-standing values and principles, they are without civic virtue.
The cultural and political rot accelerated by Trump and his MAGA movement clearly was not stemmed by electoral defeat. We are told today that rather than prosecute Trump for his crimes, we should aim to defeat him at the ballot box in 2024—even though significant numbers of his co-partisans continue to deny the validity of his loss in 2020. One also fears that the authoritarian cult Trump heads will not be stopped by the very institutional and legal processes whose legitimacy his followers do not accept. Indeed, they are planning to use these processes for retribution and other political ends.
A remedy for this kind of corruption will require those steps and more. One key to success is for Republicans to clean up their own party. Their leading candidates should not be criticizing Trump for one or another failing while also promising to support him were he to become the nominee of the party. They should not seek to win the Republican nomination by promising pardons, attacking the phantom “weaponization” of federal agencies, and preparing to fashion a more personalized, intrusive, and militarized government. With the future of a democratic republic in the balance, this is no time to be reciting creeds that substitute slogans for authentic civic ideals. We will know when a remedy for the Republican addiction to the corrupt politics of reaction is on the horizon, once the party’s leaders and activists quit it … cold turkey.