Debate = Dangerous?
April 2, 2008 — Jared
Why is there so much contention within the Democratic Party? The democrats, who were unable to produce a noteworthy candidate to usurp Bush and gain control during an unpopular war, now have two frontrunners who are winning scores of votes between themselves, but the party is becoming wary that neither candidate will concede defeat. Which makes me ask one question: “why should they?”
When did people begin believing that debate is bad? Rather than cause contention within the party, it offers the American people a greater choice in who the next president will be. Both parties have established a two-party monopoly within the country, but, fortunately for us, the Democrats have not been able to do this within their own party. That means both candidates will have to present better ideas on an array of issues to set themself apart from from the opposition.
Neither candidate can ultimately be a “spoiler” for the democrats, because both candidates are running inside the party. Unlike a third-party candidate, which is exemplary of the most radical disenfranchisement with either party, votes during primaries are being channeled to one candidate or the other. If the Democrats lose this election, they will only have themselves to blame.
So let’s drop the neo-conservative rhetoric of being either ‘with us or against us.’ Two candidates in the race can only help, not hurt, the Democratic Party. Debate is not harmful - it’s what cultivates and shapes ideas. And that’s something that until recently this country was seriously lacking.
April 2, 2008 at 8:59 PM
While I agree with you in principle — debate is constructive and aids our society in forming solutions to grave problems — the specific situation merits further attention. It isn’t the debate that’s the problem, it’s the potential effects on staunch supporters of either candidate should the nominating process play out in a less-than-honorable fashion (i.e. superdelegates essentially overruling the collective will of the party).
April 3, 2008 at 12:32 AM
Perhaps, but I would think the staunch supporters would ultimately support whoever is the nomination over the Republican candidate or even a write-in.
April 3, 2008 at 7:37 AM
There is very little difference in the announced policies of these two candidates. Obama’s position on the Iraq war has softened a good deal for a variety of reasons. I think it is unfortunate that the DNC prohibits these two from taking the gloves off. Obama could easily slay Hillary with her unethical background and the host of nefarious dealings her and Bill were party to. Of course this would give the general election to McCain, and that is the reason for suppressing this info.
Any way you cut it, we will have a false choice election. The two-sided monopoly parties will lead us down the same road to serfdom. Competition is always healthy, especially when liberty and individual rights are in the cross-hairs.
Jared’s Response:
I agree that both candidates are carbon copies, but couldn’t Obama’s expose of Hillary simply give him the election? Why would it give the election to McCain?
April 3, 2008 at 10:20 AM
You’re assuming that all of the Democratic primary voters are equally invested in the general election, Jared, which simply isn’t true. Hundreds of thousands of people have voted for the first time in their lives in favor of Obama, and if they perceive the outcome as nefarious, they’re going to lose that enthusiasm that would be so valuable in a general election campaign. I don’t think Hillary’s supporters would be equally as perturbed, since they’re more representative of the party faithful, and would likely back Obama over McCain in a heartbeat.
Jared’s Response:
Very true, I hadn’t considered the nature of the election in that much detail.