Three hundred and sixty four days from now Americans head to the polls for the next presidential election. Throughout the summer and early autumn, I've watched as the current crop of Democrats club each other over the head while trying to jockey to the nominating finish line and the chance to take on President Bush. At this point in the game, I was hoping for more substance from this crew. At this point in the game, that substance is lacking.
Bear with me here; especially my fellow Dean Nationals. I'm not abandoning ship necessarily, but rather expressing heart-heavy concern over the state of the debate and where it needs to go over the next 11 months.
This week's argument: FOREIGN POLICY
The next presidential election is going to be decided on national security issues, homeland security, and the war on terrorism - like it or not. Voters can tell pollsters that the economy, education, or any number of other domestic issues are at the top of their lists, but believe me when I say that when the voters go into their booths next November 2nd, 9/11 will be on their minds.
What's the problem you ask? Bush hasn't exactly done a stellar job in this arena. Osama bin Laden is still at large, our ports are largely unsecured, and the bogus intelligence behind sending troops to Iraq more than holds up to the "Clinton standard" of a presidential lie.
Well, while the Democratic candidates have rightly denounced the President's foreign policy, none of them have proposed any solid ideas for fixing what is wrong with Iraq or how they would repair the huge drop in our world standing. (And for the record, the debate can't be "pull out of Iraq." At this point there can be no premature withdrawal. We're there and in context of the next election it doesn't matter how we got there. It matters how well we succeed.) Now before the Dean Nationals, the Kerry supporters, and the Clark gang come flying at me with links to candidate proposals and quotes from previous debates, let me emphasize that I've heard them all. Thing is, none of our guys - or gal - is offering any solid substance. What I've heard is "things are a mess," but there isn't much else there.
Hoping things go awry does not a policy make. The American people, especially those in "red" states we'd like to make "blue" again, want a forward looking candidate with policy proposals they feel will keep their children and grandchildren safe from the lunatics who hate us so much.
Since 9/11 I've been a big fan of Tom Friedman, foreign policy columnist at the New York Times. The man has it together (if I were president, he'd be in my administration). He is by no means a Bush fan, and for the most part he knows what needs to be done in this new "September 12th world." He's the only guy in the "political opposition" (if I may put him in that context) that offers anything substantial on matters of foreign policy.
I'll read Mr. Friedman's columns twice a week and shake my head in wonderment, thinking "Why aren't we hearing this stuff from the Democrats?" Some would answer that Friedman is a bit more hawkish than they would like. Well, guess what? We need to be hawkish right now. But there's Bush-hawkish and Friedman-hawkish and I believe the United States' would be more secure under many of the proposals Friedman has suggested in his columns.
And so to the Democratic field I suggest the following: Reduce the number of debates scheduled between now and the first caucuses and primaries. You're not doing yourselves any favors by beating up on each other once a week. This contest is too important for that crap. Instead, perhaps meet twice more between now and the end of January. One debate about domestic policy; the other over foreign policy, with Tom Friedman as the sole moderator.
Yes...the war could be Bush's undoing. Things in Iraq could keep American voters uneasy over the next year. But to vote against the incumbent, they'll need the best alternative possible. (The devil they know is better than the devil they don't, the argument goes.) And if the Democratic candidate has a weak message on this most important issue....well, you do the electoral math.
Finally, I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination, jumping ship a la Zell Miller. I plan to vote for the Democratic nominee next year because, as Mr. Friedman once put it, George Bush has tried "to drive a narrow, right-wing agenda from September 10th into a September 12th world." I just want a more solid, effective debate among the party nominees. The path to Election Day will be long and hard if they don't start showing a bit more substance.
(Next week: Domestic issues.)