Skip to main content

"Information, usually seen as the precondition of debate, is better understood as its by-product."
--Christopher Lasch, American historian, moralist, and social critic

In 1993 the great controversy in Congress and in the streets of America was whether the US Congress should ratify the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  In December, 1992, in one of his last presidential actions before retiring to Kennebunkport, President George H.W. Bush agreed to NAFTA with Canada and Mexico.  However, before becoming law NAFTA needed to be ratified by Congress and it was contentous enough to become a dividing issue between free-traders on one side and anti-trade and protectionists on the other.  While the job fell to Congress to ratify or not to ratify, the newly inaugurated President Bill Clinton supported and promoted the agreement as an ecomonic benefit to not only the US, but to Canada and Mexico as well.

But prior to sending it to the House for ratification, Clinton tacked on a few bonus clauses intended to protect American workers and allay the concerns of many House members including the requirement that Canada and Mexico adhere to some of the same environmental and workplace practices and regulations that were enforced in the US. However, the ability to enforce these clauses, especially with Mexico, was considered by many to be questionable and dubious.

To settle the controversy, or rather to settle on the facts of the controversy, the new vice president, Al Gore, and Clinton's presidential rival, Ross Perot, agreed to debate the issue and did so on November 9, 1993 on national TV.

By all accounts, Gore won the debate handily and after considerable more emotional discussion the House of Representatives narrowly approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200.  This was arguably Clinton's first major presidential victory even though he claimed it with more Republican support than from his own party.  One of NAFTA's primary opponents was organized labor who, as Perot famously predicted, would be the big loser when a "great sucking sound" would be heard as US jobs went south to Mexico.  In any event, Clinton signed the agreement into law on December 8, 1993, and it went into effect three weeks later on January 1, 1994.

Sixteen years later we can argue whether NAFTA was a good thing or a bad thing, whether Ross Perot was vindicated in predicting US job losses, and whether Mexico has since met any of those US environmental and workplace standards.  Those are all good questions but that's not why I'm writing this today.  

Instead I want to suggest that we revisit the Gore-Perot debate that, for the most part, settled the NAFTA debate once and for all and led to Congress ratifying the trade agreement in relatively short order.  I want to suggest that instead of dredging up NAFTA, the 2009 version of this debate should be on health care reform, the Public Option, the endangerment of the quality of care, and the cost and payment methods of the plan (perhaps soon to be redubbed the Edward M. Kennedy Health Care Plan).  The screaming and yelling, the incendiary town hall forums, the outrageous lies, the persistent myths, the hair-splitting half-truths, and the political gamesmanship on both sides in trying to gauge and appease their bases has gone on long enough.  

Sooner or later something actually worth debating that will come tumbling out of Congressional committees.  But let's don't leave it to Congress to do it alone.  Instead let's slap the darn thing on the table, each side recruit their best debater, and put them on stage together with the TV cameras humming and blinking.  Let CNN and MSNBC and FOX and all the rest of them figure out who scored points here and who fell flat there, and then have them run all their fancy polls and demographics, and plaster up their newest graphics and animations, and in the end we will have a winner.

Sometime in the coming months our congresspeople will be asked to vote on the plan, but before they do the American people deserve a dignified and fact-checked debate on its details and reasonable, and reasonably supported, predictions on whether, and how, it will succeed or fail.

In retrospect, Gore and Perot were perfect for their roles in November, 1993, so it'll be challenge enough to find their 2009 counterparts.  The Democrats have enough quality debaters to field a basketball team, all of whom will be shouting for the ball.  The natural choices would be Joe Biden and Howard Dean, and maybe even Barack Obama himself.  But my suggestion is even more dramatic than that -- it is the man who lost his own health care plan battle and who would certainly want a second crack at it: Bill Clinton.  The Republicans would need to find a level-headed spokesman with a firm grip of history and politics and who has the necessary debating skills.  That choice is clear: Newt Gingrich.  And Gingrich is someone who would relish the spotlight and the opportunity to once again become the party's intellectual leader.

Clinton vs. Gingrich.  The Battle of the Bulging Egos.  Health Care.  Let's go.

Originally posted to lawsyl on Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 06:00 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site