As the DNC Resolutions committee voted down a proposal to hold a climate based debate 17-8, members of the Sunrise Movement and other environmental organizations stood in protest at the Hilton Union Square hotel in California, chanting “Which Side are you On?” and calling for further consideration.
Speaking to the crowd, some members of the committee noted there would be another attempt at a climate debate in Resolution 30, a resolution which could offer another chance to build a climate oriented debate in the future.
As amendments to the resolution were offered, the key sticking point seems to be that on one side, members are concerned over what defines a debate — that more than one person on stage defines a debate, which they find to be a way to stifle discussion, on the other side, the concern that too many debates will cause candidates to not get out and campaign and spend too much time in debate prep.
Symone Sanders spoke against proposals for “unlimited” debates, saying it could result in fatigue, low ratings and lack of interest, “it would be the party surrendering all controls.” At one point arguing that the party enters into a contract with networks, and it is the network, not the party, that truly decides what the format should look like. Finally “We cannot exert power over a network to make them..” hold a climate debate.
Other members echoed that thought, saying as a campaign function, continuous prep would be difficult.
Those who pushed back said that at a certain point, candidates have a fund of knowledge and in a familiar debate should not need such high levels of coaching, and that by asserting even perceived penalties the party may be doing the bidding of any front runners, and cutting off the ability of others to grow a campaign.
Resolutions will continue, but for now, the prospect of a climate oriented debate seems bleak.