DeSantis, Newsom debate was a distraction in more ways than one
Sticking to the truth versus demagoguery and misrepresentation
In the midst of the long presidential campaign that has become the standard since the 1970s, somehow a debate came to be on Fox News between Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, an actual candidate for president, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a phantom candidate, with Sean Hannity as moderator.
What seemed to have made this unlikely, unexpected and unscripted event occur was personal harmony between Hannity and Newsom, DeSantis’s cooperation easily obtained. So, for several weeks the public interest was stoked and, while I have not seen any audience ratings, I surmise it drew an impressive number. Scheduled for 90 minutes, by agreement of the parties it went on for another 25 minutes—until Mrs. Newsom prevailed twice on her husband to stop for what she saw as DeSantis’s false charges.
Well, I saw it far differently than “stand by her man,” as the format for the debate featured information about taxes, crime rates, homelessness, business climate, education and so put California in a very bad light compared to Florida. To his advantage, Newsom pivoted away from the damning statistics and made personal attacks on his opponent, not just some but every one of those stone-cold refutations of his state’s record under his leadership. But I believe it fell flat with any viewer that takes the truth seriously.
DeSantis, on the other hand, simply reiterated the damage from high taxes, high crime, growing homelessness, poor business climate and declining education in the once Golden State, and did call attention to the hostility that Newsom’s administration has shown to taxpayers, crime victims, quality of urban life, entrepreneurs, and parents and teachers. In plain words, DeSantis’s charges were accurate and Newsom’s were bogus.
Of course, DeSantis spoke well of Florida’s refusal to fall into line with the draconian measures that California and other blue states imposed in response to the China-generated worldwide pandemic on Covid 19. Here the two states in question had little difference in the number of cases and deaths despite having drastically different approaches. People in my state of California were ordered to stay in their homes in the early months of the shutdown, even denying us the right to attend religious services, while liquor stores and abortion clinics remained open.
Not a few Americans have sharply observed Newsom’s appearance, which is at once attractive and off-putting. While DeSantis’s hair is well-coifed, Newsom’s is slick in an unsavory sort of way. I would not mention this superficial difference but for the fact that it tracks so well with the way he deals with criticism, attacking his opponent personally and ignoring the facts before him.
Whatever merit there was in the debate format, based as it was on the presentation of relevant political information that shed considerable light on each governor’s record, it is no substitute for genuine political debate. By that I mean the traditional format in which each side speaks at considerable length rather than responding to a series of journalistic inquiries. The Lincoln-Douglas debates are the standard here, nothing like them having appeared in all the years since that senatorial race in 1858. Over seven meetings, they spoke for three hours, the first opening for one hour, the rebuttal 90 minutes, and the counter rebuttal for 30 minutes.
While that demanding format, which puts the politicians at the center, would not necessarily curtail or limit demagoguery, in the Lincoln-Douglas debate it gave the candidates ample opportunity to develop their vision of America and not merely a series of pressing issues. Lincoln’s main strategy was to call out the determined Democrat campaign to permit slavery to spread to the western territories and even to existing free states, while Douglas remained steadfastly neutral with his “popular sovereignty” doctrine, saving he “don’t care” whether slavery is voted up or down.
Ultimately, Douglas’s indifference proved fatal to his position, though not to his re-election. When asked by Lincoln if slavery could stand in a territory whose residents were hostile to it, meaning if no regulations were passed to protect slaveholders, he admitted that that would be untenable, if not impossible. Thus, Lincoln was able to tag Douglas as an unwitting abolitionist!
Measuring the two governors today against the standard set by two mid-nineteenth political legends is a tough go, but just consider with me if our current and past politicians were held to a higher debate standard. It is from animosity to “political rhetoric” that journalists have put themselves in the middle of politics rather than at its periphery. It is not at all clear that the quality of debate is improved, much less the expression of political visions beyond sound bites.
Political rhetoric is not guilty of the unfair charges against it. It is essential to the quality of political debate. It is true that those who do well are taking into account the opinions, passions and interests that dominate so much of political life and putting them into the perspective provided by the nation’s highest principles and most benevolent institutions. Reason, not passion, should be our guide, but that requires putting passing events into their larger perspective.
The left today is committed to putting bodily passions in the driver’s seat while downgrading marriage, property rights and public safety. A political leader, like DeSantis, who elevates what maintains order and freedom over the subterranean forces that threaten uscomes closer, in my opinion, than other candidatesunder consideration. Newsom is the man of the Democrats’ aggression who attacks rather than inspires.