What a polished group we saw last night. It sounded like this: "Senator Obama is right on that." "Yes, and Senator Edwards is right." "Oh, but so too is Senator Clinton, and of course Senators Biden and Dodd, and Gravel." "And, then we couldn't agree more with, Governor Richardson and Representative Kucinich."
Clearly they've had the proverbial stuffing knocked out of them by their political careers. They rarely utter a word with potentially contentious connotations. And even then respond, as Senator Clinton did to Senator Edwards' supposed "clash," with a one-up, gracious, lets-move-on-before-somebody-gets hurt retort.
Candidates from both major political parties have been the victims of statistical probability -- if you meander the political road long enough you're going to get hit. Others have purposely stretched out in the fast lane, sacrificing their true selves to become chimeras of presidential promise. None of them offer us ideas that enthrall or simply spoken ones that promise to pull us from the quagmire of death and disaster that grows by the day.
I'm reminded of a time as a young professor when I offered an unusual solution to a vexing problem. A prominent social scientist turned to me and said with intensity, "Kathleen, you must stop sharing your ideas with people who can't be trusted. Keep them to yourself until the right time." I pondered then replied, "But I have plenty more where that came from." He looked puzzled, shook his head as if he'd laid pearls before swine, and moved on.
Of course, politically speaking, he was right. People steal ideas. Others tear prematurely released ones to shreds. Who hasn't experienced one or both? It's frustrating and the importance of timing is learned from such painful experiences. But surely candidates for President must have enough ideas to be more assertive - to take some risks.
They've become far too reticent, too protective and paranoid. This leads to a counsel of one. Few of us are sufficiently stimulating to make that work for long. Sacrificed are interchanges of ideas that result in ones better than those of any single contributor.
What if we had a real debate instead of a series of speeches punctuated by questions and ludicrous, demeaning Wolf Blitzer-ish "raise your hand if you agree" moments? What if we saw candidates actually grapple with issues and respond with, "That's not bad, Senator. I think you're onto something there" or "I wouldn't do that in a thousand years and I'll tell you why." Aren't any of them aware that debate at its best is not about disdain or disrespect? It's about the comparison and contrast of creative ideas.
Until we get beyond this vacuous, pedantic bantering by presidential contenders the American people will know little if anything about how they truly think. Websites can't provide the heart and soul of candidates. Only Senator Biden allowed us to see that aspect when he insisted there are some things more important than being president -- saving people in Darfur.
No actor from the wings can alter this deplorable condition -- no independent candidate who merely offers an equally inane alternative. Only someone with courage will do. From a current candidate or one to come we need the enduring, individualistic kind to which John F. Kennedy referred when he wrote that past stories may teach and offer hope, even provide inspiration, but none of these supply courage itself. Courage is not something to be emulated by the loud voicing of borrowed phrases or expertly copied gestures. For the real thing, JFK offered," each man must look into his soul."
If their souls have not departed from too many years of impact on the road to each political position, then let's hear something real, something unrehearsed, or they're guilty of only a somewhat less vile version of dishonesty than that they rightfully hold against George W. Bush.