I didn’t expect to meet Abraham Lincoln last Monday night in Tracy, but there he was in the flesh – America’s most beloved president. I tell you no lie. I really saw Honest Abe – complete with beard and stove-pipe hat.
The occasion that brought me to the San Joaquin Valley farm town was a community forum for Republican primary candidates, held in the gym at Williams Middle School. And let me tell you, the place was packed with people who came to hear District 11 candidates Pete McCloskey and Tom Benigno go head-on with incumbent Congressman Richard Pombo.
Technically, you couldn’t actually call the event a “debate.” Since Jan. 23 – when he announced his candidacy in Lodi – McCloskey has pounded Pombo to meet in a public forum and face off over the issues. Unfortunately, Pombo keeps nixing his fellow GOP challenger’s call for a public debate prior to the primary.
It’s easy to understand why Pombo decided to dodge the debate. A debate – a genuine one, that is – would create problems for Pombo. There are just too many tough questions the cowboy congressman would have to answer if he took McCloskey’s challenge. At stake is congressional District 11 – which includes Morgan Hill, San Martin and eastern Gilroy, as well as parts of San Joaquin, Alameda and Contra Costa counties – and Pombo’s job as the chair of the powerful House Resources Committee, a position given to him by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
Let me say that Monday night’s forum event – held in Pombo’s hometown – was loads of fun to watch. At times, it seemed like a sports game as people cheered on their respective candidate. But sadly, it was no true debate.
The League of Women Voters had tried setting up a legitimately organized debate, but Pombo nixed their notion that District 11 voters deserved to hear the candidates engage on the issues. Why? Wayne Johnson, Pombo’s campaign manager, gave this rather wry reason: a debate would be too “debate-like” for the congressman.
Think Pombo’s a chicken? I don’t. His decision isn’t cowardice, but cunning. Pombo knows that in a legitimately run debate, he’d have to face a gauntlet of sharp-edged questions he can’t easily answer.
I don’t know if Pombo cares about history, but for this District 11 primary, perhaps it might be enlightening to look at the evolution of the debate in American politics. And since Abraham Lincoln (as played by Tracy resident Al Haindl) was at Monday’s community forum, perhaps America’s very first Republican president can help us see how debates benefit democracy.
In our nation’s early years, public debates were rare. Political etiquette demanded candidates not make direct appeal for votes. Following George Washington’s lead, office-seekers generally acted coy in their campaigns.
Lincoln changed all that in Illinois in 1858. In his bid for U.S. Senate that year, Lincoln hounded incumbent Stephen Douglas, challenging him to debate by attending public meetings where Douglas spoke and offering blistering jibes from the galleries. Eventually, Douglas gave in and agreed to a series of seven public debates.
Both highly articulate men, Lincoln and Douglas sparred each other over the political issues of the day – namely slavery. And the public loved the show. Lincoln won the debates but lost the election because, unlike today, state legislators – not the people – chose U.S. senators. Illinois’s legislature sent Douglas to Washington.
The 1858 debates, however, served Lincoln well. It gave him tremendous national exposure and helped win him the presidency two years later.
Television opened up political debating to a wider audience. During the highly contested presidential campaign of 1960, Sen. John F. Kennedy challenged Vice President Dick Nixon to a televised verbal showdown. Some of Nixon’s campaign advisers told him to decline, saying he had nothing to gain and everything to lose, but Nixon accepted JFK’s challenge.
For radio listeners, Nixon came out ahead as a thoroughly prepared and polished debater. But voters watching on television got a very different perspective. Well-tanned and vibrant, JFK showed charisma and “star power” as a presidential candidate. Nixon, on the other hand, had declined makeup before setting foot in front of the bright lights needed for TV cameras, making him seem pasty and weak to viewers.
The American election system, of course, doesn’t require candidates to engage in debates. But I believe well-organized political debates run by trusted organizations, such as the League of Women Voters, can play a vitally beneficial role in selecting our elected representatives.
Today, the system favors the candidate with enough clout to raise enough cash to pay for expensive media advertisements. The politically savvy Pombo knows this. That’s why he brought in buddies like House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Vice President Dick Cheney to build up his campaign coffers at fund-raising functions.
Public debates, however, can level the political playing field. They pit the candidates against each other to verbally wrestle over the issues.
American democracy is better served by genuine candidate debates. Too bad Dick Pombo doesn’t see that. But you really can’t blame him for declining McCloskey’s offer to argue the issues that are of importance to District 11 voters. He’s smart to listen to his campaign advisers, who told him to decline. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose.
A slipup over a landmine question – such as on Pombo’s legislation putting in peril endangered species, trying to sell off national parks or taking contributions from federally convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff – could easily cost the congressman his cushy House seat.
A real debate would also bring up the issue of ethics and honesty. District 11’s congressman’s scruples are so questionable, even “Abe Lincoln” voiced his deep dismay to me at Monday’s forum in Tracy, saying: “I journeyed here tonight, sir, all the way from the 19th century, looking for a man of honesty, of integrity, to go against that rascal Mr. Pombo. I believe Mr. Pete McCloskey is that man.”
Of course, in Congressman Pombo’s eyes, Honest Abe’s pointed statement is one that’s open to debate.
