It’s another Saturday, so for those who tune in, welcome to a diary discussing the Nuts & Bolts of a Democratic Campaign. If you’ve missed out, you can catch up anytime: Just visit our group or follow Nuts & Bolts Guide. Every week I try to tackle issues I’ve been asked about, and with the help of other campaign workers and notes, we tackle subjects that people who want to assist a campaign want to know.
Every so often, however, I use this space to talk about the party itself, the role we all play, and how we can all work to continually improve our Democratic efforts. This week, I had originally slated a response to questions I’ve received—don’t worry, I will tackle those next week—but instead, I’ve decided to talk about an effort to change our debates in the Democratic primaries.
A few weeks ago, I wrote that we need to rethink how we are handling debates for our candidates. This past week, Gov. Jay Inslee asked for a debate of which the primary focus would be climate change. He was informed that this wasn’t really possible, and that if he participated in any debate with other candidates about climate change at another forum, he would face consequences—such as being banned from future DNC debates.
This, frankly, isn’t in the best interests of the Democratic Party. Tina Podlodowski, chair of the Washington (state) Democratic Party, and several other party chairs voiced immediate concerns in response to the DNC’s stance. On June 6, a group of 18 DNC members representing 10 states, myself included, joined together to advocate for a change in party debate policy for the 2020 cycle.
Let’s talk nuts and bolts, and how you can help.
The DNC can be the vehicle to fix this issue
Unfortunately, things like this happen, and the instant reaction of many party activists is to, as one friend put it, “kick rocks at the party.” This, however, almost never results in real change. While Gov. Inslee is focused, and rightly so, on climate change, many individuals and organizations would like options for deeper discussions about many issues. In a one-hour or 90-minute debate on numerous topics, it is difficult to get into any real substance or have a thoughtful discussion.
I’ve heard counterarguments: Maybe America isn’t ready for a real discussion. We like quick zingers and moving on to the next topic. If we want to address real problems in America, though, the time has come to start talking to each other as adults. A more thoughtful exchange on issues doesn’t just benefit the candidates; it also benefits public discourse. Instead of fast-moving debates in a giant field, where we expect answers and responses to come out of candidates’ mouths at a pace that would be familiar to parents of a small child who had just drunk a case of caffeinated soda, we instead could have a chance to see our candidates and the issues in a way that we as advocates can actually use. Buzzwords and catchphrases and bumper stickers can move you just so far, but understanding the issues and making them clear to voters is what can take you the rest of the way.
Inside the DNC, numerous people have devoted big parts of their life to numerous issues. They also would love the opportunity for a real, thoughtful discussion. We all recognize that there is a difference between listening for your turn to inject what you want to say and listening in an effort to learn from someone else.
The 18 DNC members who signed on at the very beginning to the proposal to change DNC debate policy are only a fraction of the total number of members who also see and want to provide our candidates with a more substantive way to have a discussion with the American public.
We offer two paths
I do understand the concerns of DNC chairman Tom Perez that if we agree to one focused debate, other organizations and advocacy groups will want debates focused on their issues. There are many organizations and groups that want to be seen, heard, and included. But campaign organizers have told me that the logistics and cost that would be involved in getting every candidate to every event would make it impossible.
This complaint involves a lot of general assumptions that I just don’t believe to be true. It assumes that if a candidate were unable to make a debate because of a scheduling conflict, people would instantly assume that they were opposed to Democratic values on that issue. I hope that most of our Democratic electorate isn’t that easy to confuse. It also ignores current technology, including the internet, and assumes that we must conduct all of our debates and forums in the same way.
An online debate? Candidates participating via digital broadcast from anywhere? A mix of in-person and remote appearances? Questions and answers? Or even simple microdebates, in which a smaller number of candidates choose to take on specific issues for specific audiences?
What, in the end, is wrong with more?
Climate change was shut out in 2016
In presidential debate after presidential debate and forum after forum in 2016, climate change was ignored. Because of this invisibility, many of us believe it’s time to provide a platform for the discussion of the crisis we face, and to engage not just Democratic voters, but the general public, in planning a strategy to handle that crisis.
Podlodowski has the problem exactly right, and the advocacy of so many of its members is what keeps the Democratic Party on track, as a party in which our leaders are long-term activists, dreamers, and believers.
Sometimes, in the hope of doing something right, the party makes mistakes. I know Tom Perez to be a leader who is dedicated to working on environmental issues, and I know he cares about climate change. I’m comforted to know that everyday leaders inside of our party work to do their best on behalf of the issues we care about. We may not win on every issue inside the DNC. There are many viewpoints on how to accomplish our shared goals.
Sign petitions. Join the effort. Help us show that not only do we want a climate change debate, but we also have Democratic voters who want to see a thoughtful discussion. Help support those of us who believe in a change in our discourse.
There is no debate on Climate Change.
One of the reasonable concerns the party has is the way in which we define a debate. For the DNC, a debate is more than one candidate on stage at the same time, debating issues in their candidacy.
This is we need to be clear — a forum with all of the candidates participating at the same time is simply not a debate, because their is not a single Democratic candidate running who is a climate change denier. Not one. Instead, I believe this is an opportunity to build a consensus forum, where the party could — and should — allow multiple candidates to participate, whether they are on the same stage or handled virtually, and not to debate the issue but to work to solve the issue and to help better inform the public about the issue.
We talk about our efforts to build unity in our candidates, support for our future nominee, and an effort to beat Trump, and I ask you: how much better is it for our party to remind the voters that we are the party that wants to solve problems.
What if we allowed actual scientists to be those who guide the questions instead of political moderators? A forum where the candidates are the ones who can hear from the science community and respond? What if our candidates could, participating virtually or on stage, talk about the urgent realities in their own state, in their own communities? There are many options available.
There are a lot of opportunities here, but put aside the rhetoric — there is no debate on Climate Change. It is real. And offering our candidates innovative opportunities to discuss it with the largest audiences possible should be a priority.
We have to recognize this is the 21st Century. As someone who grew up doing Speech and Debate, very rarely do I see anyone engaged in a Lincoln-Douglas style debate in the real world. Technology has offered us entirely new ways to build our community. By embracing change, we can be the party that actually improves the process.
That could have lasting impacts for everyone, and Tom Perez has the opportunity to be the chair that can make this change.
Thoughts?
As always, your questions in the comments will get answers!