First Presidential Debate Shortchanges The World

While political pundits and pollsters have analyzed ad nauseam every grimace and eye blink of Friday night's first presidential debate, one important issue seems to have gone unnoticed. Someone switched the rules of the debate at the eleventh hour.

Prior to the conventions of the major parties, the Commission on Presidential Debates had proposed, and the candidates had agreed, that the first 90 minute debate would be devoted exclusively to foreign policy and that the third 90 minute debate would focus exclusively on domestic policy

Yet it took 40 minutes before an international question was asked at the first debate. During the remaining 50 minutes, the moderator, Jim Lehrer, and the candidates took their time in covering only four, albeit important, foreign policy related topics: lraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Russia.

Sorry, world. Now that the United States has its own economic crisis, we're apparently too busy to discuss issues like genocide, global poverty, AIDS and the vast array of problems that affect the majority of the global community.

Human rights activists, and the hundreds of millions of people around the world who depend on their work, were left disappointed by the many unasked and unanswered questions. What, for example, will be our next president's plan for helping bring a swift end to the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan that is entering its sixth year? What will be his policy to address global poverty, climate change and the spread of AIDS, malaria and TB in the world's poorest countries? What will the United States, as the leader of the free world, do to help protect the rights of people around the world to health, dignity and justice?

Human rights organizations had advocated for this debate to address these crucial issues of our time. Genocide Intervention Network coordinated a letter-writing campaign to Jim Lehrer asking him to include a debate question on Darfur. Similarly, ONE launched a new campaign to get "just ONE Question" about the fight against global poverty asked at the 2008 presidential debates.

Human rights activists also called upon the candidates themselves to speak out regarding their position on Darfur. And NGOs like Physicians for Human Rights asked presidential candidates to pledge to make the investments required to fulfill U.S. global health commitments, including universal access to HIV prevention, care and treatment, and to support the health-related Millennium Development Goals.

However, these entreaties fell on deaf ears.

Many understandably believe that it was imperative for the current economic crisis to be addressed at this timely presidential debate. However, the Commission on Presidential Debates, together with the two presidential candidates, should now act quickly to rectify this eleventh hour change in the agreed terms for the debate. This can be easily done by allocating 40 minutes during the October 15 debate to a discussion on international policy concerns such as genocide, poverty, disease and climate change. A new e-petition at the Americans Against Genocide website calls on the Commission to do just that.

The American public, and the billions of people worldwide who are affected by US foreign policy, deserve nothing less.

Comments

[BringOnTheChange]

excellent blog. absolutely agree. Hope to see this implemented in the next debate.

[puttheYOUinUSA]

part three... The thought that the US should ignore select world issues because they are not of importance to the voting public, or advantageous to scoring points in the polls, represents a growing problem. We are supporting government that is shrinking in scope, and growing in its desire to illicit scapegoats to excuse itself. We must hold our leadership accountable to the issues, without excuse. The debates themselves have succumb to the political spin machines, and moderators that proclaim objectivity

I am very happy to see that this posting is shedding light on the fact that a debate with preset terms was utilized in an alternative fashion. After all, the American people are only being permitted several debates by which to catch a glance at some sort of live candidate fact-to-face (albeit camera-to-camera, or face-to-moderator) dialogue. Why not demand that the preset issues are adhered to? Our president will forever be faced with multiple issues, and should be ready for anything, but should most of all be accountable to exactly what the people expect. 


Thank you for speaking up and out.

[Susan Morgan and Jirair Ratevosian - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank you for this insightful and affirming post.

I especially was struck by this sad but true statement of yours:

"The US once chose to portray itself as a selfless nation when it came to its involvements in the world, and now portrays itself as selfish without apology."

I hope that under the next president the United States will again prove itself to be a nation worthy of respect and appreciation around the world.

[puttheYOUinUSA]

part two... Think of the last time you saw the American media cover a Washington protest, and how often you are shown the person with the brightest t-shirt or face paint, instead of the podium speakers, as if to make a mockery of outspoken citizenship.

Asking the necessary questions such as to evoke proactive action is the first step. That issues such as genocide or AIDS are overlooked is proof positive that we are not acting proactively enough, and for this, we must hold our leadership responsible.

Should the US carry the world upon its shoulders? No, and this has never been the expectation. However, the US, just as any world power, should recognize its ability, capacity, and responsibility to change, influence, and involve itself in current and emergent world issues because it benefits from the world in turn. The US once chose to portray itself as a selfless nation when it came to its involvements in the world, and now portrays itself as selfish without apology. For whatever reason, this incredulous stance has managed to seep itself to a myriad of sectors. 



Continued...

[puttheYOUinUSA]

This is precisely the type of dialogue that a debate should bring about. Rather than piddle over who looked at whom, and analyze semantics in an effort to trivialize the issues, it is time that the American public use their voice, and any means of free speech, to express exactly what they expect out of their leadership and from political dialogue.

We are a nation of 300 million, and yet, we seem to want to excuse the acts of leadership. There is no reason to feel as if when our expectations are not met by leadership that we cannot speak out about it. There is nothing unpatriotic about expressing the very right that is so critical to the American experience, that it is underscored in the first amendment of our constitution, and superimposed onto each and every modern democracy since. Ironically, it seems that our agenda as a nation is emerging from the top down, rather than the bottom up because people are not speaking out. The financial crisis could have been avoided by earlier warnings from outspoken analysts, but instead we shrugged these ideas off as radical. For whatever reason, we've lost our free speech gusto, and just accept the issues that are put in front of us; thats just unacceptable.

Continued ...

[SylviaB]

As a "foreigner," I too was outraged by the complete lack of attention paid to any substantive foreign policy issues, not the least of which being the genocide in Darfur and the plight of the developing world. I am tired of "leadership" that pretends it cares about the issues of the world, while really its own self-interest is the only priority. Our economy affects the global market, but the inability of our presidential candidates to make the leap from the economy to foreign policy is disheartening. Most foolish, however, is the fact that this lack of perspective and egocentrism further destabilizes the developing world, breeds the hatred of the West that can develop into terrorism, and fails to acknowledge and celebrate the common humanity we all share.

I fear that things will get much worse before getting better, but I stand in solidarity with the ones whose voices will eventually drown out the ones who condone torture and pre-emptive strikes, the ones who repudiate healthcare for all and support extreme action against illegal immigrants, the ones who feel the wealth of few is more important than the lives and homes of many.

Both presidential candidates must be held accountable, both to America and to the world. In so doing, the next president may finally be be able to build and strengthen the much-needed foreign diplomatic relationships that will endure if times continue to get rough within America's borders.

[Jirair Ratevosian - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank you SylviaB for your comment.

I couldn't agree with you more! US presidents and presidential candidates must be held accountable to the world- we need to be a voice for the voiceless.

[EMS196]

It would be great if the debate were to include even one question on global humanitarian issues, but, alas, it's a debate, not a lecture. There's little point in debating esoterica. Much as activists appreciate the horror and magnitude of humanitarian crises, most Americans would guess that Sudan is a new SUV, torture is limited to Guantanamo - if there - and starvation has largely been eradicated except in distant, "backward" countries somewhere. If the candidates are going to address such issues, they need to do it on the campaign trail, not at a debate. That said, if during enough televised press conferences the issues were raised before the mikes, they might penetrate America's collective consciousness enough to warrant a debate question. But with the financial crisis, healthcare, Iraq, and Russia on the prowl, I doubt it.

[Wim1974]

I agree also, but while a large part of the debate went about the economy, Since the debate orginally went over the subject of foreign policy, I was disapointed that neither candidate went deeper on how this financial crisis is not limited to the US. As a European, my view of the future is rather grim.

[ReElectNoOne]

Sorry I don't agree with you...

The rest of the world certainly has a stake in our election however they don't vote in our elections nor are they legally represented in Washington by anyone we elect at home.

The candidates are there to speak to American voters and to no one else in these debates. It is their only job there to try to give us American voters some sense of where they stand on issues.

Since the current crisis, real or manufactured, is the economic situation, it is fitting that the first debate should focus on economy NOW while the topic is current.

Our economy IS one of the big factors in our foreign policy and cannot be separate. Other nations we do business will be more instantly effected by today's economy here than by any "hints" at what November's choice of president will bring them.

The change in questions was appropriate and well justified.

[scientist4obama]

The power of SOFT POWER is always underestimated.

Poverty and desperation in the third world leads to extremism
Extremism leads to National Security threats
National Security threats lead to wars
Wars lead to Economic disasters

The debate commission should have completely changed the subject of this debate instead of doing what they did. If they really thought and a lot of people would agree that Economy would be on everyone's mind, then change the subject. Don't have a foreign policy debate without addressing the real world issues such as poverty, starvation, disease and above all GENOCIDE!

Remember Osama's safe haven was Sudan!

I recommend you read Greg Mortenson's Three Cups of Tea. Grassroots SOFT POWER at it's best!

[Ekoehler]

In absolute agreement with the above. I understand that the economic crisis is related but to spend half of the debate discussing a plan of action that was out of the candidate's control seemed excessive. And if the economy is tied to national security, how much more so "soft" diplomacy and foreign aid that fights against the poverty and desperation that drive extremism while building American credibility abroad?

I was especially annoyed by the last question, which wasn't even, how would you reduce the likelihood of a new 9/11, but "what is the probability?" Again, a question that obviously neither candidate is going to answer . . . and shouldn't answer, really - more wasted time.

In some ways focusing on the present while ignoring the future prompted the economic downturn we're now experiencing. If we focus on this now to the exclusion of all other issues, we will see poverty, disease, and violence lead to crisis points over and over. There are broader lessons to be learned than just how to regulate wall street.

I just wish one of the candidates or the debate commission had made some connections.

[david bryden]

Many Americans wrongly assume these issues do not affect us. Or they assume that the cost of addressing global poverty is astronomical, so we could never deal with these issues AND deal with problems at home. Both assumptions are incorrect.
Take Afghanistan -- an investment in basic development there would be a cost-effective way to help deal with Islamic extremism and thus improve our security. Or take disease threats -- an investment to help countries deal with drug-resistant TB and Avian Flu could save millions of lives in the US since these diseases know no borders. Will it break the bank to address these issues? NO. The cost is minuscule relative to the US budget.
Obama has signed an explicit pledge about the issues while McCain has only given us pretty rhetoric and no specifics. Check out:
http://www.globalaidsalliancefund.org/index.php/c4_site/interior/press092508/
My worry now is that Obama is saying his spending proposals on aid may need to be delayed in light of the financial crisis. This would be a mistake because these threats (take Avian Flu or drug resistant TB) are getting more serious everyday and truly threaten the average American. And besides, action on these issues is crucial to improving US standing in the world, which is essential to improving our security. Delaying action on them is not acceptable.

[Susan Morgan - Huffpost Blogger]

David,

I agree that we are incredibly short-sighted in our view of these issues. Our efforts to fight genocide, disease and poverty are not only the right thing to do from a moral standpoint, but they also will help improve our national standing and thereby our national security.

[K.J. Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger]

I absolutely agree.

I covered a "Debate Watch" event in Buenos Aires and, although I didn't include this point in my article, a lot of people there were disappointed with the lack of comprehensive analysis of the myriad of foreign policy issues virtually ignored in the "foreign policy" debate.

One thing that bothered me greatly was that, after the debate, the Obama campaign released an ad that basically said "Number of times McCain mentioned the middle class? Zero" and then cut to Obama speaking about the stresses on "the middle class".and "people" struggling..

The fact is, though, that neither candidate mentioned "the poor," either in the U.S. or abroad, and that was a huge oversight. Given the economic stresses both at home and abroad, "the poor" represent too much of an overall percentage of the country's and the world's population to be so blatantly ignored.

It was somewhat inevitable that the economy would take away from this debate. However if they were intent on including the bailout as part of the discussion, the fact that neither candidate mentioned "the poor" was reprehensible.

[rednecka2z]

right on target. I also was very disapointed that 40 minutes was eaten up by a subject to which (at the time) had no resolution nor could the canidates do anything but vote with the Majority.

[Susan Morgan - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks, Rednecka2z,

It was frustrating to spend 40 minutes on a topic which went nowhere.