Last night's Democratic debate was on target

Those who think that politics and governing should be blood sports -- or at the least should take place in an arena where the weapons of choice are puerile verbal put-downs and taunts -- have probably been disappointed in the Democrat presidential debates so far.  Why?  Because these events feature people who actually talk in complete and informative sentences as they answer questions put to them about things that the nation's voters have said are important issues.  Yesterday's event was Part 1 of the current debate cycle; we get Part 2 tonight.

I've got to give credit to the CNN folks who anchored last night's debate.  They had good questions that covered the issues of the day, they were polite but firm, they kept track of a candidate's answer to each question and circled back if the answer was not on the topic of the question, and they managed the entire event according to the rule book.  Also, Detroit supplied a beautiful venue.

For their part, all of the candidates were respectful of each other, of the audience and of the moderators.  Disagreements did not change any of that; these people were professional.  Donald Trump's name came up often -- as should be expected -- but always in the context of a legitimate governing issue.  There were no personal attacks, no sleazy name-calling, nothing disrespectful.  (Although Trump defenders might quibble about a remark regarding Trump's record on truthfulness.)

It was a lively two and one-half hours, including commercials for the television audience.  (What did they do in the theater while the rest of us waited for the commercials to end?)  All of the candidates were articulate and thoughtful.

We heard a lot about healthcare; I suppose that was the most-discussed topic.  It had top billing, anyway.  But significant time was spent on immigration; education; climate change; foreign policy; employment; innovation; infrastructure; taxation; slavery-related reparations; geographic appeal; structural governing changes; constitutional amendments; age appeal; nature of leadership; ethics; it was a busy evening.  (Interesting thing:  I don't remember any mention of election meddling by Russia or other hostiles, or of the increasing Federal debt.  Did I miss those?)

There were some agreements among the candidates on how things should get done; there were lots of disagreements.  This is how government works best -- something needs to be accomplished, there are different ideas on how to do that, the ideas get tossed around, a plan emerges and eventually there is action and legislation.

All of these candidates gave me the feeling that if they were to be the next president of the United States, they would be capable of the give-and-take, wheeling-and-dealing machinations that have been the lifeblood of great and significant governing accomplishments.

Sure, it's messy and time-consuming, but that's democracy for you.  If there's a better way to run a country I'm waiting to hear about it.

Did somebody (or somebodies) "win" the debate?  Probably, but we won't know until new opinion polling is done, and new fundraising is tallied.  These things are not real debates, where an impartial authority judges according to evidence presented and the logic in doing so.  These are "get to know the candidate" events.  Last night, ten Democrats who want to be president told us about themselves and their ideas.

I like all of them.

My open letter to the current occupant of the White House

Dear Mr. Trump:

I have several bones to pick with you. 

Before getting to the meat of the matter:  Thank you for having a fill-in-the-blanks form on the White House website for use in writing to you.  However, it did not allow me to send you this letter.  The form accepts only something that would be much shorter, and, besides, it fails to allow this nice spacing between paragraphs so that there is no reading enjoyment for you in a letter's final appearance.  I think you will find the visuals of this posting to be much more pleasing to your eye.

Let me introduce myself.  In some ways, I am a member of the demographic to which you hope to appeal:  WASPish, on Medicare, former (now retired) small business owner.

Don’t get excited.  I live in California and am a card-carrying Democrat (at this point, I can’t blame you for being a bit deflated), I have college degrees, I disagree with you on. . .well, I cannot think of a single area of agreement with regards to your conduct as president, and I'll leave it at that. . .and I am the father of a daughter whose mother is a member of a racial minority.

Being a parent is, of course, an intensely personal thing.  You have children, so you probably understand that.

Then let me ask you something:  How would you feel if a highly visible and influential public figure were to take some characteristic of one or more of your children and say that characteristic is such that your offspring should leave home in America and go live somewhere else?  If that public figure were the nation’s president – yes, I’m speaking about you; this is not hypothetical – would you feel the stirrings of an increasingly threatening environment that was being built to “cleanse” the country of people of that characteristic?  I am feeling that way; I imagine you would, too, if the shoe were on the other foot.

And now, if I am understanding what you are also saying – and I believe that I am – you maintain that it’s really all about people who “hate our country” because they disagree with you and they say so.  After all, you say, you don’t “have a racist bone” in your body; instead, you blame all this on others who “hate.”  As if that makes a difference.  

It doesn’t.

 

In your mind, disagreement equals hate.  I have already told you that I cannot think of a single area about governing policy and practice in which we would agree; to you, does that mean that I hate the U.S. and should leave for somewhere else?  Apparently so.

Unfortunately for you, our country has a two-and-a-half century history that says otherwise.  You cannot change that.  True enough – that history includes a lot of evolution in the country’s diversity of cultures and its acceptance of that diversity, but it is an evolution that in fits and starts, in two-steps-forward-and-one-backward, has never stopped, and has never been undone.  It’s an imperfect history, but taken in total it is an honorable one.

But, I guess you think you can change all that.  That’s very unfortunate for our country, because that kind of change will diminish it.

I understand that you are playing a political game here in conflating racial appearances and differences of opinion with what you label as too much immigration into the U.S.  It’s your marketing plan for the next election.  Everybody needs a marketing plan, right?

Your plan, though, is hurtful to our country.  In fact, upon retiring from the presidency Ronald Reagan put it this way:  “If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost.” 

(Yes, I know that particular sentence shows up in the recent U.S. House of Representatives Resolution 489 that has you on edge, but I thought you ought to know of its origin.)

Your insecurity about disagreements goes beyond the issues of immigration.  But you are the one who has ginned-up anxieties about immigration, diversity and cultural change, so I think it’s fair for me to make the connection.

If you insist in trying to change America’s history and erase its progress, all that you will accomplish is to diminish the nation’s stature by attempting to make it into some kind of “fortress America” instead of the “welcoming America” that it had become prior to your presidency.  We already know that building on the honorable successes of the past yields a better future.  Doing otherwise results in diminishment; unchecked, that would end in irrelevancy.

You will fail, because you have now made things very, very personal and very much about family, country and their combined future.  And I believe I say that not only for myself, but also on behalf of a great many others.

Sincerely,

Garry Herron