The All-American Presidential Forums, Republican Edition

The All-American Republican Presidential Forum was an excellent showcase of what a small debate can offer. It will perhaps be remembered as the most unusual nationally televised debate of this presidential campaign since it failed to attract any of the top Republican candidates, yet in terms of content and the pictures it offered of each participating candidate's entire platform it will likely rank among the best in quality. By forcing each candidate to answer each question, the Forum defied the tired pattern that Republican debates have tended to follow so far. Thus, instead of just hearing Ron Paul rage about Iraq and Tom Tancredo decry illegal immigration we also got to listen to them talk about topics like health care and the justice system. It was a nice change.

Given moderator Tavis Smiley's public suggestion that the missing Republicans were choosing to ignore minority voters by not attending the debate, it was only natural for the candidates who did show up to attempt to show themselves as concerned about minority issues and solicitous of minority votes, but some made more of an effort than others. Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback in particular seemed to make a point of adopting a conciliatory and concerned tone throughout the debate. On the other hand, Tom Tancredo -- the surprise attendee who had earlier in the week suggested the debate wasn't worth his time because the top tier candidates wouldn't be attending -- tried to downplay the relevance of race to several issues raised in the debate, including the high rate of unemployment amongst black high school graduates which he linked to illegal immigration. Ron Paul seemed to fluctuate between these two approaches; at times he seemed like a pure idealogue, entirely concerned with message and not audience, but he also freely criticized manifestations of racism in the justice system in regards to the drug war and the death penalty. Duncan Hunter played the historian throughout the debate, proudly recounting the Republican Party's history of being a champion of African Americans, but he kept mentions of race to a minimum when discussing issues. In contrast, Alan Keyes mentioned race incessantly and seemed at times to be addressing his answers entirely to the black community, though the content of his message did not differ much from what he says in other venues.

While three of the Republicans at the Forum are commonly considered religious conservatives, the difference between Alan Keyes on one hand and Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback on the other was readily apparent. Keyes attempted to turn the conversation towards "family values" issues at every step of the way, similar to how Tancredo continually linked illegal immigration to other issues. Huckabee and Brownback on the other hand seem to be quite content to talk about other issues in their own context without injecting a family values or religious conservative agenda into everything they say. Keyes' focus on marriage and family as the panacea to cure society's ills makes me wonder if a person like me, who is unmarried and has no children and is not thinking about getting married or having children, even exists in his world. While Huckabee impressed me with his analysis of the justice system and his idea for including photo ID production as part of mobile voter registration and Brownback surprised me with his concept of instituting an optional flat tax in economically depressed areas to stir up growth, Keyes focused his eloquence squarely on promoting a family values agenda. Ultimately, I don't think a one-dimensional candidate is very likely to win a presidential election, but Keyes clearly has a role to play in this campaign: he alone of all the Republicans will inject Christian conservative ideas into debate even when it is not all that convenient to do so, and he will also freely criticize other Republicans for not following his lead.

I never expected to be saying this, but I honestly thought Huckabee and Brownback performed far better than the other candidates. I've praised Huckabee before, but Brownback was something of a revelation to me; he performed about ten times better in this debate than in any previous Republican debate I've seen. The tone those two adopted which I mentioned earlier may have contributed to their performance, as they did seem to be very comfortable with the venue. I think Huckabee is the most well-spoken of the Republican candidates, and it is very difficult to put him in an uncomfortable rhetorical position (this quality is reminiscent to me of former president Bill Clinton), but I have noticed he can also be Clintonesque in the Hillary fashion at times. When he talked about improving employment opportunities for minorities, I really had no idea what he had in mind...that's just too vague, pretty words which fail to hold even a promise of a solution. If Huckabee is planning on a new Works Progress Administration in the inner cities, I think we need to know about that right now! Huckabee I thought also had the worst moment of the debate because he used a question about Darfur as an excuse to start talking about abortion and poverty in America. The idea that Americans have problems at home is a valid reason why America should not focus its resources so much elsewhere, but Darfur is one of the great tragedies of our time and shouldn't be brushed aside because abortion is legal in the United States! I don't support American military intervention in Darfur, either, but hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost and there should be recognition of that fact whenever Darfur is discussed.

Ron Paul doggedly put forward his views as he always does, but he seemed a little bit tired in this debate to me. No matter -- Paul has never been the smoothest speaker around, but he will still keep talking about liberty to whoever will listen. As I mentioned previously, this debate was good because it forced candidates like Paul and Tancredo to weigh in on a variety of issues, not just a single "pet" issue. We did see a glimpse of the softer side of Paul here, the Ron Paul who became opposed to the death penalty when he realized innocent people were being convicted and killed...but the glimpse was fleeting. Paul is uncompromising in his support for individual liberty and the free market, and his message doesn't really change from venue to venue. This debate, though, may have shed some light on some of Paul's stances that may not often be heard elsewhere: his dislike of minimum wage laws and his opposition to a national ID card, for instance.

Duncan Hunter is one of the more enigmatic figures in this presidential race. He seems to be the one guy out there who is really enjoying himself and is utterly indifferent to the poll numbers and amount of support he receives. There's a twinkle in his eye as he speaks about defense, military strategy, and the border fence; it is noticeably absent at times when some other topics come up. This was Hunter's strongest debate by far, as he showed a nice sense of humor and a good knowledge of history to go along with his focus on national security and illegal immigration. Alas, he was also the only guy to get challenged by the moderator for not answering a question directly; Hunter is definitely a candidate who has a set of core issues he really cares about and a pile of "other" issues he approaches gingerly at best. Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised to see Hunter get a cabinet position if the next president is Republican. Personally, I think he should start writing novels about espionage and covert military operations, perhaps set in the Cold War era. I made a feeble joke in my last post about Hunter generating excitement, but I have to admit that line about driving a "humanitarian corridor" across Sudan was kind of exciting, though I don't exactly know what would be involved in that process.

In short, the All-American Republican Presidential Forum was a successful debate even without the top tier Republicans. Brownback and Huckabee distinguished themselves above the rest of the pack, but the other candidates also performed well. Alan Keyes embraced his role as a virulent champion of family values. Ron Paul continued to preach liberty. Tom Tancredo blamed much of the country's ills on illegal immigration. Duncan Hunter made us laugh and feel protected. Most importantly, though these guys did pretty much what they always do, we got a deeper glimpse of their entire platform because of the questions which were asked and the time these second tier candidates were allowed to speak. If you missed the debate, you can watch it online, read a transcript, or listen to a podcast by visiting the official web site of the All-American Presidential Forums.

Here Come New Challengers

The race for the Republican presidential nomination has been considerably more volatile than the Democratic race so far. While the withdrawals of Jim Gilmore and Tommy Thompson temporarily narrowed the field during the summer, Fred Thompson and Alan Keyes have recently made their campaigns official, and Newt Gingrich has stated that he, too, will enter the race if he can raise $30 million dollars in three weeks. About all we need now is for Al Gore to enliven the Democratic side of things and we should have a presidential primary season for the ages on our hands. My guess is Gore and Gingrich won't end up as candidates, but I welcome Fred Thompson and Alan Keyes into the race. I'm particularly intrigued at the prospect of watching Keyes in future GOP debates. He is a charismatic firebrand and religious conservative who is not afraid of aggressive politics; I'm very curious to see if he will attack Rudy Giuliani and perhaps Mitt Romney more aggressively than Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee have to this point.

The All-American Republican Presidential Forum this week should be a good showcase for Keyes as well as Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. Although Giuliani, Romney, John McCain, Tom Tancredo, and (least forgivably, in my opinion) Fred Thompson will miss the debate that will be broadcast both on PBS and online, the second-tier candidates will have the stage to themselves on Thursday, September 27th, at 8 PM CST. While it is disappointing that all the top-tier candidates are skipping this debate considering that the Democratic version of this event was so well-attended, I am interested to see how this group of candidates takes advantage of the opportunity a small debate offers each of them. Perhaps even Duncan Hunter will generate some excitement! Stranger things have happened...I think.

Iraqi Self-Determination

The question as to whether the United States Army in Iraq is an invading force or a liberating force is as controversial today as it was in 2003. Although Saddam Hussein has been consigned to the pages of history and a new government has been established in Baghdad, American troops still patrol Iraqi streets and deserts, killing and dying on a daily basis. Personally, I do still think of the United States as a liberating force -- at least, I want it to be a liberating force. However, I cannot deny that the United States has acted in some ways like an invading power. It is the role of the conqueror to tell the enslaved province what military and political goals must be achieved there, yet the United States has adopted such a role by setting benchmarks for a foreign government to achieve. When the United States government adopts the position of telling the Iraqi government what to do, American policy is actually hindering Iraq's journey to self-determination. To an extent, I think that the United States should sit back and let the Iraqi people and Iraqi government choose their own future. The American military's true role should be to oppose those forces within Iraq that are themselves fighting against Iraqi self-determination: terrorists, Iranian sympathizers, Baathists, and more! It should fulfill this role in partnership with the Iraqi government and on an as-needed basis rather than by increasing its numbers and dominance in a way that only makes the Iraqi government seem like nothing more than a puppet. It has taken me a while to come to this conclusion; long time readers of this blog may remember my support for the Biden-Gelb plan. In some ways, it remains an eminently sensible plan, but its critical flaw is that it seeks to impose an American vision for Iraq on Iraq -- although the United States may really know best under these circumstances, this is not an example of self-determination by any stretch of the imagination and it is certainly not conducive to the creation of a democracy.

Of course, the reasons which compel the United States to remain in Iraq are numerous and complex and are certainly not limited to delivering self-determination and democracy to the Iraqi people. Indeed, it is self-interest which primarily motivated the invasion and continues to primarily motivate the surge. There is a danger, thus, in giving Iraqis the freedom to determine their fate because they could undermine much of what the United States has done in Iraq. Mike Gravel has already said that he thinks American troops are dying in vain in Iraq as in Vietnam; it would be quite hard to argue with this statement if Iraqi self-determination brings another anti-American strongman or terrorists or a militant theocratic government into power. However, there is also a strong chance that Iraqis will continue to choose freedom if they are given the chance. I think we should try to avoid letting our fears about what might happen in Iraq cloud our view of the Iraqi people who are as deserving of free choice and liberty as any other people on the face of the Earth. Although the surge might be as effective in the long run as Bush and McCain think, the same goals could also be achieved by the Iraqi people themselves and require far fewer American lives in the process.

An immediate US withdrawal from Iraq would be another way to attempt to give Iraqis self-determination, and this policy has the wonderful advantage of bringing an end to American military deaths in Iraq. The problem with withdrawal is that no one really knows what will happen afterwards. If Iran invades or Iraq becomes a terrorist state, does the United States intervene once again? If not, will the political situation thus created be far worse than the political situation that existed when Saddam Hussein was in power? Of course, there is also the possibility that Iraq will become a vibrant democracy in the heart of the Middle East of its own volition, and I expect a battle-tested Iraqi democracy led by hardened freedom fighters would be far stronger than any that could be created by American power. Without the United States' direct influence to support the cause of Iraqi self-determination, however, I fear that anti-democratic forces in Iraq will strongly have the upper hand.

Quote the Reagan Nevermore

Every Republican presidential debate I've watched thus far has included several references to Ronald Reagan. President Reagan seems to be one thing absolutely all the Republican candidates can agree on: they admire, emulate, and want to be favorably compared to him. The steady deluge of Reagan references is not simply about the candidates wishing to voice their admiration of a former president, though; surely the Republicans are trying to send a message to the voters as well. In fact, I think they are trying to send several messages to the American public. First and foremost, each of the Republican candidates would like to appear the most "Reaganesque" simply because Ronald Reagan has remained a relatively beloved and admired president; there are plenty of Reagan voters that will be also voting in 2008, so it serves the candidates well to court those voters. Secondly, I think some people do think the Cold War and the War on Terror are similar in their unconventionality; to me, they seem like pretty different beasts considering the Cold War was essentially a conflict between governments and the War on Terror is anything but that, yet I do understand why Republican candidates would like to appear to be as capable of leading America through an unconventional war as Reagan was. Thirdly, this is the first presidential campaign which began after Reagan's death, so this is the first time politicians have had free rein to reference Ronald Reagan at will. They certainly have taken advantage of that opportunity, to the point of gratuity in my opinion.

Although the repetition of the Reagan name is tiresome, I think there are other reasons why Ronald Reagan should perhaps not be referenced by candidates as much as he has been so far this year. Speaking personally, I don't really remember Ronald Reagan; I lived my first six years with him as the president, but the first George Bush is the first person I recognized as being the president. Assuming that the people with the most vivid memories of the Reagan years were at least aged 12 during the 1980 election, people who are younger than 39 are going to be much less personally attached to Ronald Reagan. They know Reagan from studying history and politics and listening to older people, but that's not quite the same thing as being aware of the Reagan presidency as it was happening. So, for some young people at least the frequent mentions of Ronald Reagan will alienate them from the campaigns. That's not so terrible, necessarily; young people are notorious non-voters. However, I think the Reagan references may also alienate older people as well due to the passage of time. A lot has happened since the Reagan years. Two decades cannot be wiped away in a flash; memories of September 11th trouble more Americans right now than memories of the Cold War do in spite of the anxiety and terror caused by the latter. When people like Giuliani, McCain, Hunter, Huckabee, Brownback, and Romney invoke the name of Reagan, I often wonder if they wouldn't rather be bringing up the man whose policies they agree so much with: George W. Bush. It seems like President Bush's unpopularity in the moment has forced the candidates to seize the Reagan mantle when the Bush mantle would better fit their shoulders. That leads me to my final point: if Reagan could be mentioned when it is appropriate and not simply name-dropped at random moments, the political discourse in this country would become a little bit more truthful and sophisticated automatically. Truthful politicians should speak of Bush when they mean Bush and Reagan when they mean Reagan.

New Hampshire Republican Debate -- Mike Huckabee vs Ron Paul?

The most interesting thing about the September 5th Republican debate on the campus of the University of New Hampshire to me was that the first tier candidates seemed to be essentially overshadowed by two of the second tier candidates. Whether this is indicative of a changing of the guard is debatable, but I'm convinced that the Republican nomination is very much up for grabs now. The two candidates who won yesterday's debate are, in my opinion, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Huckabee has performed well at all the debates, but what he has needed all along is for his charisma and his eloquence to be utilized in support of some overarching message or platform. Huckabee seems to have found his platform now: honor. Why should America remain in Iraq? According to Huckabee, the surge should continue because it is the right and honorable thing to do. Huckabee's personal honor -- essentially, his steadfast adherence to what he believes to be right -- is what will enable him to make strong decisions in moments of crisis (a nuclear standoff with Iran, for instance). Although Huckabee is a Christian minister and his political positions are strongly influenced by his religion, the former governor from Arkansas has a knack for framing issues in such a way that his message can appeal to everyone, and he is relatively cautious about bringing religion directly into politics. While Huckabee appeals to Americans' sense of honor, Ron Paul stirs their intellect. When Paul mentioned Mossadegh in a previous debate, I knew he was a bit unusual; to speak of a foreign historical figure most American voters will never have heard of takes a bit of bravery. He continues to be unusual...he is the one candidate who seems to always approach voters as intellectual equals, no matter whether he is discussing strange policy changes, the true legacy of the Reagan administration, or the rise of the neoconservatives. He is the theoretician par excellence in this political race; his biggest weakness, of course, is that so many of his theories are untested in reality. He was forceful and eloquent in the New Hampshire debate, and the flatness of the other candidates besides Huckabee made his performance seem all the more impressive.

The debate's most memorable exchange was surely the exchange between Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul over the Iraq issue. Huckabee, as I mentioned earlier, posited the issue as a matter of honor, and he linked the honor of America as a nation to the personal honor of all Americans. Paul, as usual, appealed to the intellect: supporting failed policy for the sake of "saving face" is foolishness. Huckabee is perhaps the most eloquent defender of the surge I have ever heard, but I do think Paul got the better of this exchange ultimately. The emotional power of Huckabee's argument rested too much on a single word, "honor"; Paul took all the mysticism out of the word by linking it to the phrase "saving face," a truly trivial reason for conducting military operations. However, if Paul did indeed score a victory here, his margin of victory was slight. Paul greatly weakened his argument for withdrawal by his unwillingness to even address the issue of what might happen in Iraq if American troops pull out of the country. I can accept that those who predict doom and gloom for Iraq in the case of an American withdrawal could very well be wrong given their prior track record, but I do expect to hear an alternative vision from anyone who is asking me to reject the other predictions. What Paul didn't say spoke volumes.

While Paul and Huckabee stole the show, the frontrunners stumbled. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney were both put in extremely uncomfortable situations by questioning viewers. One audience member wondered aloud whether Giuliani's personal life could be reconciled with the "family values" dear to the hearts of many social conservatives. Another questioner severely chided Romney for the governor's comparison of his sons' helping him with his campaign with military service. Romney had already apologized for the statement, so I was surprised that he looked as uncomfortable as he did when confronted with it again. Perhaps he was wondering to himself, "Is that going to haunt me for the rest of this campaign?" I guess it very well could, and perhaps Romney was right in that case to acknowledge the greatness of military sacrifice without unduly castigating himself for his flippant statement. Those who did not hear Romney's original apologies may well be angered more that Romney seemed so eager to brush aside that criticism, however, so I think Romney would've been better served if he had delivered a more heartfelt apology. The question posed to Giuliani was far more difficult, and Rudy seemed to realize that there was no way he could deliver a perfect answer to it. Giuliani acknowledged that he was not a "perfect man" and essentially declared himself not to be a "family values" candidate per se; he presented his campaign as based on issues like crime, terrorism, and taxes instead. I think Romney will become more comfortable speaking about his misstatement in the future, but I wonder very much if Giuliani will be able to avoid being labeled as the serially monogamous candidate who openly rejects family values. Indeed, I'm starting to wonder if the bottom could fall out of the Giuliani campaign soon. He has become far too repetitive and mechanical in answering debate questions; I know I've already grown very tired of hearing about Giuliani's escapades as the mayor of New York City. To trumpet one's record is fine to a point, but this approach taken together with Giuliani's desire to keep his private life outside of discussion makes the Giuliani campaign seem increasingly inhuman and impersonal. The Paul and Huckabee campaigns seem to be where the vitality and human interest are at the moment.