As we near the 2022 midterm elections, some of our long-fueled societal weaknesses are becoming increasingly visible. For example, for the past half dozen years, the Intramuralist has been disappointed in our overall choice of candidates. It seems we oft have to choose between the lesser of two evils, so-to-speak. Allow me to gently assert that the “lesser of two” would still equate to evil. That’s not something I can authentically support. Sorry, friends, but as one who desires to promote what is good and right and true, I don’t believe either character or competency need be sacrificed. There are people running right now — from both parties — who are hoping we overlook one or the other.
But lest we digress, the new phenomena that seems to be surging as we approach November 8th is what is currently classified as something like the following:
“To Debate or Not Debate: That Is the Question”
We’re seeing it across the country. Candidates of all political persuasions are pondering the point. Granted, the last train wreck known as a presidential debate did no one any favors. I learned years ago, no less, as the leader of my high school speech team, that debate is to be a discussion or structured contest in which support and opposition of resolutions are respectfully articulated. My strong sense is that the words “discussion” and “respectfully” are absent from most candidates’ approach.
Nonetheless, allow me to suggest that the idea “to debate or not debate” is not really the question. It’s not the bottom line. And it’s not really what’s plaguing the candidate who chooses to refrain.
The more transparent question would seem to be this:
“How will I do in an environment I can’t control?”
In other words, as Liz Morrison, a leader of the highly respected No Labels organization, suggests, “One of the few things that unites politicians of both parties is the single factor they fear perhaps most of all: uncontrolled situations.”
And so what happens if a candidate is asked something they don’t have a sweet-sounding answer to? What happens if the words don’t flow smoothly off their tongue? What if they have to admit they actually don’t know the answer? What if people cheer for the other? What if they boo? What if they experience a major gaffe? What if they simply come off poorly? What if they’re even wrong?
The situation is out of their control.
Hence, what many candidates are showing us is only what they want us to see — not who they really are.
Because let’s face it; as a person wanting to represent us, we need to know who the candidates really are. We need to know what they are capable of. We need to know how they are when the situation is not controlled, as no leader gets the irrational privilege of determining ahead of time what they will face in their tenure. In fact, we could actually appropriately debate that the best leaders are those who thrive in environments out of their control.
I think of arguably the most attractive, influential moment of George W. Bush’s presidential term. It was three days following the unprecedented 9/11 attacks. Borrowing a bullhorn, standing atop the rubble, Bush addressed the rescue workers gathered at Ground Zero. It was perhaps the best speech of his career.
But it wasn’t scripted. It wasn’t written beforehand. And suffice it to say, the situation was totally out of his control. That’s when Bush led best.
Friends, we deserve to hear from those who wish to represent us. As Morrison states, “Debates are different than rallies, TV ads, and photo ops. They offer relatively frank and unpredictable forums that lead to the kind of dialogue we need to understand and evaluate those who seek to lead us and to get things done.” Debates help us know who the candidates are and what they really believe — not just the image their comms team has crafted and what they want us to think they believe.
If a candidate, therefore, cannot debate — if they are either unable or are unwilling — that’s insightful… not about the candidate’s opponent, but rather, about them… and about their potential future ability or inability to lead.
Respectfully…
AR