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 \u201clesser of two\u201d would still equate to evil. That\u2019s not something I can authentically support. Sorry, friends, but as one who desires to promote what is good and right and true, I don\u2019t believe either character or competency need be sacrificed. There are people running right now \u2014 from both parties \u2014 who are hoping we overlook one or the other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cTo Debate or Not Debate: That Is the Question\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n We\u2019re 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 \u201cdiscussion\u201d and \u201crespectfully\u201d are absent from most candidates\u2019 approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nonetheless, allow me to suggest that the idea \u201cto debate or not debate\u201d is not really the question. It\u2019s not the bottom line. And it\u2019s not really what\u2019s plaguing the candidate who chooses to refrain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The more transparent question would seem to be this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHow will I do in an environment I can\u2019t control?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n In other words, as Liz Morrison, a leader of the highly respected No Labels<\/em> organization, suggests, \u201cOne of the few things that unites politicians of both parties is the single factor they fear perhaps most of all: uncontrolled situations.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n And so what happens if a candidate is asked something they don\u2019t have a sweet-sounding answer to? What happens if the words don\u2019t flow smoothly off their tongue? What if they have to admit they actually don\u2019t 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\u2019re even wrong?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The situation is out of their control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hence, what many candidates are showing us is only what they want us to see \u2014 not who they really are.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Because let\u2019s 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<\/em> 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<\/em> in environments out of their control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I think of arguably the most attractive, influential moment of George W. Bush\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But it wasn\u2019t scripted. It wasn\u2019t written beforehand. And suffice it to say, the situation was totally out of his control. That\u2019s when Bush led best.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Friends, we deserve to hear from those who wish to represent us. As Morrison states, \u201cDebates 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.\u201d Debates help us know who the candidates are and what they really believe \u2014 not just the image their comms team has crafted and what they want us to think they believe.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n If a candidate, therefore, cannot debate \u2014 if they are either unable or are unwilling \u2014 that\u2019s insightful\u2026 not about the candidate\u2019s opponent, but rather, about them\u2026 and about their potential future ability or inability to lead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Respectfully\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n AR<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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 … <\/p>\n