The Grown Ups Take the Stage at the Democratic Debate

New York Times (Editorial)

October 14, 2015

The Grown Ups Take the Stage at the Democratic Debate

It was impossible not to feel a sense of relief watching the Democratic debate after months dominated by the Republican circus of haters, ranters and that very special group of king killers in Congress. For those despairing about the future of American politics, here was proof that it doesn’t have to revolve around candidates who pride themselves on knowing nothing or believe that governing is all about destroying government.

Civility was a big winner on Tuesday night, and the discussion of real issues was refreshing. But what stood out most was the Democratic Party’s big tent, capable of containing a spectrum of reality-based views. All five candidates — including two refugees from what had been the Republican Party, Lincoln Chafee, a former Republican senator, and Jim Webb, secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration — have real records. They also have real differences on important issues — national security, foreign policy, gun safety, financial reforms. Those differences illuminate the choices that have to be made in governing, some likely to be successful, some ineffective.

The debate probably won’t change much in the polling. Hillary Rodham Clinton reminded us why she’s the front-runner, with her experience, command of the issues and strength in communicating ideas. She seemed both at ease and fearless. It helped that the candidates actually valued time to discuss issues. One of the biggest applause lines was Senator Bernie Sanders’s quip to Mrs. Clinton, “the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.” Supporters of Mr. Sanders embraced his passionate critiques, but his performance may not convert those skeptical of his ability to broaden his appeal.

The biggest point of agreement was on income inequality, the central theme of the Sanders campaign and one that has been put on the top of the agenda by the other candidates as well. The question, of course, is how to reduce it in an economic system that has been moving toward ever greater inequality. Mr. Sanders said he would change the tax code to have the wealthiest pay a lot more, with new revenues going to education, free college tuition and health care for all. Mrs. Clinton would also raise taxes, and said she supported reining in “the excesses of capitalism so that it doesn’t run amok,” though it’s not clear what that would take, given the trajectory we’re on.

There was agreement on the need to raise the minimum wage (Senator Sanders proposes $15 an hour; Mrs. Clinton gave no firm number) and specific views on how to improve financial reform efforts — break up the big banks or improve the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. Regarding unauthorized immigrants, there was agreement that they should be allowed to purchase coverage on the health exchanges, but Mrs. Clinton, unlike the others, did not support giving them government subsidies.

On guns laws, there was great divergence. Mr. Webb has earned an A rating from the National Rifle Association; Mr. Chafee and Martin O’Malley, the former governor of Maryland, have F’s; Mr. Sanders said he had received a D-minus, but had a tough time explaining his vote against the Brady Bill. He seemed so determined to continue pandering to his gun rights constituency in Vermont that he got lost in the odd idea that he is more in touch with rural voters than the governor of Maryland and ended up undermining his image as the righteous truth teller.

On foreign affairs, there was disagreement over the American role in the war in Syria and against the Islamic State. Mrs. Clinton supports a no-fly zone in Syria, an idea opposed by Mr. Sanders and Mr. O’Malley. Likewise on surveillance and security issues, Mrs. Clinton defended her support for the Patriot Act, which allowed the National Security Agency to create a vast secret surveillance program, while Mr. Sanders opposed the act and said he would shut down the program.

These are healthy and necessary disagreements on difficult challenges that America faces. There is no one way to achieve a more economically equitable and just society, but these Democrats have that common aim. Their discussion showed a capacity to absorb facts and adjust plans to consequences. The Republican candidates may have a lot of fun campaigning for office, but they haven’t a prayer of knowing what to do if they ever enter the White House.

For more information, go to:  www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com