"Mary, let me tell you a little story..."
Every day I scroll through the diaries here at DKos looking for the latest pro-Bernie and pro-Hillary diaries. Well, all right, several times a day. And I do this not to enhance my knowledge of the candidates and the issues, but to wallow in the vitriol. I'm not proud of it, but there it is. I'm a flame war junkie.
And there's a comforting familiarity to this activity. How it takes me back! To the glorious days of yesteryear -- the Dean/Clark/Kerry conflict in 2003/2004! The Edwards/Clinton/Obama throwdown in 2007/2008! You crazy kids today; you think you invented vicious, but you don't know internecine thermonuclear war like the old hands do.
Anyway, the point is that as the thrilling first Republican debate approaches, several diarists recently have been talking about the currently only-theoretical Democratic debates and whether this is a good thing or a bad thing; the result of Debbie Wasserman Schultz's incompetence; designed to help Hillary because she'd look bad in a debate; really better for Bernie because he get would get crabby etc. etc. (I'm not endorsing any of these positions, but I've seen all of them expressed). But apart from all that, and regardless of which candidate you support, I believe that the Democratic party is making a big mistake by not scheduling debates early and often. We're stuck with a Presidential election process that sucks all the air out of the governing room for months; let's make use of it.
And that brings me to A Little Story which I will try to keep short. Back in the last millenium I spent many years as a public defender. One of the features of public defending is that you always get heard last (well, technically second, but in the fiery furnace of trial, that means last). You get heard last in the pretrial skirmishing; you get heard last in jury selection; you get heard last in opening statements. The state's witnesses testify first and you get to question them last. You put your witnesses on last. At the end, the prosecutor argues first; you argue second (in a unique and nasty twist, the prosecutor then gets to argue AGAIN and you don't).
So criminal defense lawyers often ask the jurors, with due solemnity, "Now, can you reserve judgment until you hear ALL the evidence? Until after the State has rested and I put on my witnesses?" And the jurors solemnly promise to do so. And then they don't.
The best closing argument I ever gave was in a three strikes case, where my client was looking at life without parole for an alleged attempted strong arm robbery. I was on fire, if I do say so myself. There was a lawyer on the jury. They acquitted after a worryingly long delay, and then I talked to him. "When we went to the jury room," he said, "I thought we'd acquit right away because of your closing. But, you know, the other jurors didn't seem to have heard it." Of course they didn't. By then, they'd spent five days in an unfamiliar, uncomfortable, environment and they hated everyone responsible for it and they just wanted to go home. Luckily we'd made some good points in jury selection and in my cocounsel's excellent opening statement, so we squeaked by.
First impressions are more powerful by virtue of being first. Unanswered statements are more powerful by being unanswered. Remember the the swiftboating of John Kerry, when he took the advice not to deign to respond to them? Recall the Obamacare legislative process? All the goofy, unhinged crap the Republicans spewed about death panels and your doctor will be disappeared and replaced by a Kenyan communist? Notice how to this day, Obamacare polls badly even among people who benefit by it? I thought of that when President Obama defended the Iran deal in a rare press conference the other day. He was brilliant. He was persuasive. And we haven't seen enough of him
Conventional wisdom is that the Republican candidates are making fools of themselves and we should just clear the field and let them do so. But that is some hateful effluvia they're vomiting into the public square. And when the Democrats just tidy their clothes and purse their lips and look the other way, they appear to be acquiescing, or at least not much bothered by it. Or even scared to engage.
Instead, the candidates and their surrogates and the Chair of the damn DNC (who should be someone other than DWS) should be calling it out for the vile, fascistic, racist, misogynistic bile that it is.
It's not just about winning the Presidential election. It's about public discourse, about what ideas are in general circulation. The smart people need to do more talking. They need to attack and denounce and mock the vapid musings of Jeb! and the hate speech of Trump and all the rest of it, NOT shrink back and wait till it's their official turn to talk.
The Democratic candidates are all interesting, smart people, even the ones whom I secretly believe to be the spawn of Satan (sorry; effect of the flame wars). Let them talk! Sure, they'll disagree with each other, but they'll also display a rational world view, which we're not seeing anywhere in the mainstream media right now. I loved Sanders' idea of debating Republican candidates as well. Sunlight, best disinfectant etc.
A right wing worldview, much more right wing than I ever imagined, has leapt in through the Overton window and is roaming unchecked and unchallenged in public. Unanswered, its tenets become ever more accepted. What are our candidates waiting for?