No more soft pitches, please
Morton Mintz's suggested debate questions for 2004 makes for some fascinating reading. Lots of good populist questions in there, here's one of the more obvious (which will likely remain unasked due to the corporate sponsorship of the Commission on Presidential Debates):
One of eight Americans — 35.9 million — lived in poverty last year. They included nearly 13 million children and nearly 4 million single mothers. The trend is up: 1.4 million more Americans were below the poverty line in 2003 than in 2002. Children are more likely to be poor today than 30 years ago. Would ending poverty do more or less than tax breaks for the wealthy and the middle class to promote the general welfare — a chief goal of the Framers of the Constitution?
posted by Mark D. @ 11:27 AM |
| 
4 Comments:
Holy loaded question, Batman!
I'm a staunch lefty, and I'm not new to the blog (though, checkout the shmancy Blogger login!). But while I agree it's a good question, and I would LOVE to hear some answers from the candidates, there are some big ol' assumptions underlying it. Any attempt to argue the premise of the question and replace it with a candidate's own views about what is best for the general welfare, and/or ideas about causes of and cures for poverty, would surely be taken as waffling, or ducking. It's almost a "have you stopped beating your wife?" sort of a question.
I pity the fool who attempts to answer this question in less than five full minutes. I'd vote for the guy who could form some original thoughts, based on proven ideas, and have a clue about how to make the situation better.
-Erik
Since when are loaded questions not allowed in debates? What sort of question are you looking for?
A good debater should be able to slice through a loaded question just as easily as they (well, he) hit the Lehrer softballs out of the park. Anyway, this one takes about 12 seconds to answer:
"Of course I believe ending poverty would do far more to promote the general welfare, and I plan to concentrate on poverty alleviation during my administration. I also intend to roll back tax breaks for the wealthy. There is no need for them, and this country can't afford them."
See?
[hangs head in shame]
Yeah, okay. I guess I'd be a lousy politician (or just a lousy debater)... Maybe if I go all Devil's Advocate the objection will be clearer. I was thinking it would be something like--
I do not think that tax breaks for hardworking Americans, who should have - and DO have - more power than the government to fuel the economy and create more opportunities for more people, have to be in opposition to ending poverty. Quite the opposite.
Of course poverty is a terrible thing, and the idea of children in poverty is worthy of our outrage, and our immediate, compassionate, action. Far too many Americans live in poverty, and that's a situation that absolutely needs to be addressed. It needs to be addressed in concrete, meaningful, local ways, not in terms of big government programs that obviously have not stemmed the tide of poverty, as you point out so well.
I believe, as the Founders believed, that the problems of the people will find their remedies in the people, and that's why I work hard to place the economic power back in the hands of hard-working Americans. Those sobering statistics you mention just underscore the failure of big-government welfare programs to stop the hemorraging.
In fact, our nation is bleeding to death, and you're asking me if ending poverty would be BETTER than something else? That seems to me to be simplistic, sir, and glib. I'm sorry to get upset, but the American people mean so much to me... [chokes up momentarily]
If we had the power to end poverty overnight, by trying something different, which we knew would work of COURSE we would do it, immediately.
But let me ask you this: since what we've been doing is clearly not getting us any closer to ending poverty -- in fact, it's getting worse year by year, as you point out, don't you think it's time to let the American people control over how the nation's economic resources are devoted to solving the problem?
You imply it, but you never show that these tax cuts lead to the increase in poverty. I think it's time to let the American people get to work in solving this terrible problem. Thank you, and God bless America.
. . .
All I'm saying is, a good debate is going to happen between the lines. Everything else is just style points. Both Pres. Bush and Sen. Edwards understand the intricacies of style-over-substance. A tough, probing question will by its nature have sufficient complexity to provide a toe-hold for just about any remotely valid interpretation, and some chunk of the electorate will buy it.
And in our system, all that matters is how many of your people vote, versus how many of the other guy's. I wish it was about the legitimacy and the value of the ideas, but that has not been my experience.
- Erik
Good day
Mason UniversityMason University, Swing ClubParty.
Furthermore
Post a Comment
<< Home