Democrats’ debate: a calmer, gentler move to the left

Compared to the Roman gladiator debates of recent Democratic and Republican presidential campaign cycles, the first 2020 primary debate was an exercise in civility, probity and policy.

The questions were mild and the answers, milder — no one’s hands or other body parts were attacked. The winners were clearly Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who received generous early airtime and predictably attacked big corporations and the wealthy, and former Vice President Joe Biden, who was not in the debate but, in comparison, will likely seem more experienced and ready for the job. It’s his to lose in the next round.

It’s clear that NBC was following a careful script in this debate, for the most part avoiding the typical gotcha questions and placing hot topics like impeachment near the end while placing the economy, health care and immigration up top. Its moderators probed for some issue differences among the debaters but didn’t confront Warren with her claims of Native American heritage and generally displayed their pro-Democratic bias in labeling Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) as an obstructionist while ignoring the passage earlier that day of a border aid bill, 84-8. 

Overall, though, one wishes all of the political debates were served up this way, as it enabled the candidates to look serious — and that’s a good thing for our politics and our democracy, even if most of the viewers were asleep by the end.

Unfortunately, these moderators would never treat candidates from the other parties in the same manner nor allow them to repeat “facts” and ignore questions with only slight pushbacks. Just about all of the candidates repeated the mantra about how the economy is benefiting only the few and all the benefits are going to big corporations or the wealthy. They danced around the fact that millions of new jobs have been created — by definition, benefitting those millions — or that the Gini coefficient that measures inequality hasn’t moved in years, or that wages have been rising.

The party’s much-discussed shift to the left was largely on view, though it was somewhat toned down as most of the candidates supported continuing to allow private health insurance alongside new government options including “Medicare for All.” While at points former congressman John Delaney (D-Md.) sounded a moderate horn, he largely avoided direct confrontation with the more left-leaning candidates. There were no “Sister Souljah moments” — no direct confrontations of extremist positions, or calling out of recent anti-Semitic comments by Democratic representatives. The candidates largely split hairs while calling for more health care, more compassionate immigration policy, new taxes, more subsidies for green energy and free college tuition.

New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio gave the second-most impassioned defense of the leftward shift after Warren, and he probably did himself some good in the debate by striking an authentic tone about his beliefs.

If Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) ever was a moderate that was hard to detect in this debate. The most dangerous moments for the party came in the discussion of Iran, during which Gabbard seemed out of step with the country and Iranian leaders were treated with kid gloves. It’s easy to forget that the Iran nuclear deal had the support of only about 35 percent of Americans when it was negotiated and signed by President Obama, or that most Americans completely distrust Iran even more than President Trump.

Former congressman Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) seemed out of his depth in this debate. It was hard to understand why he was ever hyped as a top-tier candidate, given his lack of a record and that he did not display a great understanding of people or policy as he shifted back and forth between English and Spanish. He does best when he is center-stage, and so this format didn’t allow him show off his magic on the stump. He likely needs to wait a few more cycles. 

While O’Rourke seemed to ignore the findings of the Mueller report on Russia collusion, and Delaney called Trump “lawless,” most of the candidates stayed away from impeachment, suggesting it is a dead issue right now. Delaney gave a prolonged answer on how the constituents he meets want to talk about national issues, not Russia. Even with Rachel Maddow as a moderator, discussion of this topic was short and largely muted compared to the daily speeches of Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

As more and more of the candidates realize that they won’t be graduating to the top round of contenders, we can expect the field to become more desperate to take down the front runners. For now, though, this first debate gave us a sober introduction to a host of experienced candidates, in contrast to the topsy-turvy political world of the last few years. They presented a far more policy-oriented shift to the left, with talk of wealth and carbon taxes rather than the “concentration camp” language of the past few days. At the same time, no one really stood out as ready to take down both Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.

And that’s why the nominee probably won’t come from this group of Democrats — although Elizabeth Warren has become the second-tier candidate to watch, and she likely improved her position as a possible upset-in-Iowa contender.