#DebateFAIL
by Tom Sullivan
"Abjectly terrible" is how The American Prospect's David Dayen describes the Democratic presidential debates held so far. As any channel surfer could see, the format (premise?) is not so different from professional wrestling only without the pyrotechnics and with less yelling. The Democrats' candidate list resembles a Marvel credits scroll.
Jay Inslee withdrew last week, as did John Hicklenlooper and Seth Moulton, joining Richard Ojeda, Mike Gravel and Eric Swalwell before them. Only Inslee has added something to the contest, Dayen believes. Washington state's governor entered the race to raise the profile of addressing the climate crisis and he did. Even so, at its summer meeting in San Francisco last week, the Democratic National Committee voted down demands by climate activists to allow candidates “to participate in multi-candidate issue-specific forums with the candidates appearing on the same stage, engaging one another in discussion.” Thus ends Inslee's and the Sunrise movement's effort to hold a debate focused solely on the climate crisis, something 15 of the candidates were willing to have.
There was not always such an emphasis on debates, Dayen observes, with the inordinate focus on "who will make the debates, what will happen in the debates, and what did happen in the debates." Obama’s 2008 Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa and John McCain’s comeback performance in South Carolina changed the race. Mitt Romney never shined in 2012 debates, yet won anyway. But today, debates are "the front door for presidential politics."
The shame of it is the debate structure gives few candidates a chance to spotlight what might be interesting ideas they bring to the race. Those stationed stage right or left have not been exciting enough to make more than a blip in the polls. For them, running for president has proved to be a vanity project, or a fundraising one. The debate format leaves them with little chance to make an impression outside opening and closing statements and little time for presenting a complete idea.
So Andrew Yang's speech at the San Francisco meeting made an impression fielding debate questions from reporters could not. Delivered from a DNC podium, his presentation was not much of a campaign speech. But it was a helluva a TED talk without the round, red carpet.
Stores are closing around the country, Yang began. Amazon is "soaking up" $20 billion a year and paying zero in taxes. Retail clerks, call centers, truck drivers and the restaurants and truck stops that service them are about to be replaced by technology. It is the "fourth industrial revolution." Immigrants are being scapegoated for it, wrongly, but it is coming, Yang insists.
What state provides its citizens between $1,000-2,000 per year, no questions asked?
Alaska, the audience replied.
"And how do they fund it?" Oil, the audience shouted.
"And what is the oil of the 21st century?" Technology. A recent study shows data is now worth more than oil.
"How many of you received your data check in the mail?" The audience laughs. Yang has his own version of Universal Basic Income, an idea that dates back at least to Thomas Paine.
What to do with the millions headed for replacement by technology is a topic David Atkins raised often during his Hullabaloo tenure. What are Democrats going to do about it? It is a topic more immediate to threatened workers than melting ice in Greenland. But neither will get much airing in these game-show debates.
Yang has no shot at the presidency, but it is a shame he doesn't simply get 7-8 minutes for his pitch before a national audience. Heads would nod across the country.