Skip to main content

To Debate Or Not To Debate: Foley’s Folly


Do debates determine elections?

On occasion, they do. Those defending the proposition that debates are determinative point to the Nixon-Kennedy contest of 1960. And of course the Lincoln-Douglas debates still are held up in the history books as demonstrating the political utility of vigorous debates.

It is sometimes forgotten by those who urge the importance of debates that Stephen Douglas, not Abraham Lincoln, emerged the victor in their Senate contest. The Lincoln-Douglas debates later were assembled into a book by Lincoln. Widely distributed, the book helped him to win the presidential election of 1860. The format of the Lincoln-Douglas debates – a 60 minute opening statement from the first candidate, followed by an alternative 90 minute statement from the second candidate, followed by a 30 minute rejoinder  from the first candidate  -- became, with some adjustments, the template for most future political debates. The Lincoln-Douglas debates were moderated by Lincoln and Douglas, not the Howard K. Smiths of the pre-Civil War period.

Then too, there are those, the authoritative editors New York Times among them who, following recent studies, have concluded that “on sound points of argument” Nixon, not Kennedy, won the Nixon-Kennedy debates, though Kennedy undoubtedly was the more telegenic of the two presidential candidates. Nixon wore no makeup, was at the time suffering from the flu, had lost weight and was hobbled by a bad knee. Nixon’s dark jowls and his past history as an aggressive communist battler probably did more to shift media and public approval in Kennedy’s favor than any gaffes make by either of the presidential candidates in any of their four public debates.

Lincoln -- unusually tall at six foot four inches, gangling, with a high register voice – was well aware that his optics were not favorable. When, during one of his speeches, a heckler in the audience shouted out that Lincoln was “two-faced,” Lincoln shot back, “If I had two faces, do you think I’d be wearing this one?”

There will be no Lincoln or Douglas in any of Connecticut’s gubernatorial debates, and none of the candidates – Governor Dannel Malloy on the Democratic side, State Senator John McKinney and former ambassador to Ireland Tom Foley on the Republican side, as well as independent candidates Jonathan Pelto and Joe Visconti  – brutalize the eye.

The question whether there will be a sufficient number of debates has itself become a not inconsiderable part of the gubernatorial debate season. Republican front runner Foley has been coy about debating.  Mr. Foley has pocketed the Republican Party nomination for governor and leads all other opposition candidates in recent polling. He can well afford to dodge debates with lesser candidates and wait until they withdraw from the field either from a lack of money to wage a convincing campaign or from low poll numbers that eventually drive competitors from the race. The Republican Party primary falls on August 12th, after which remaining Republican Party candidates can be safely tagged as “spoilers.” Independent party candidates will escape the invidious labeling.

The avoidance of debates is both smart and stupid. And, be it noted, it is smart and stupid for the same reason: In the absence of debates, a candidate need not commit to specific policy proposals. The Democratic Party incumbent governor, Mr. Malloy, already has laid many of his cards on the table. His program for the future is what he has done and failed to do during his first term as governor. Mr. Malloy is a progressive on most social and economic issues of the day; indeed, he is the most progressive governor in living memory, but not, Mr. Pelto often reminds us, progressive enough on education and union matters. Mr. Malloy has not entirely surrendered the operations of state government to powerful union interests – not yet anyway.

A non-committal campaign on the Republican side is both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, the non-committal Republican candidate may non-committally slide through the primary season without having inflicted permanent injury upon himself or other Republican gubernatorial contestants. The two Republican candidates for governor, Mr. Foley and Mr. McKinney, appear to have taken to heart former Republican President Ronald Reagan’s commandment:  Love the Republican Party with thine whole heart, mind and spirit, and love thine Republican Party neighbor as thyself.

But a non-committal campaign – or, worse, a Republican campaigner who does not register on the public consciousness in primaries or general elections as distinctly different than a Democratic Party campaigner – leaves any Republican Party gubernatorial victor without a mandate to govern. And a Republican Party governor who slides into office unbruised in both a primary and general election contest will, while in office, be torn to pieces by the permanent opposition. The non-committing candidate, in other words, is the candidate whose gubernatorial term in office will be thrown on the sacrificial alter – along with what is left of a once vibrant state now up to its ears in rubble. Without a clear mandate from the people, minority Republicans cannot govern; they will become, as they have been in the past, the playthings of a superior force majeure, as the French might say.

The French also have another saying that ought to rest uneasily on the top of the minds of all Republican candidates this year:  "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" (the more things change, the more they remain the same). If things in Connecticut remain the same for even a few more years, beneficial change will have been sacrificed to political expediency. And without courageous commitment, there can be no beneficial change.



Comments

Anonymous said…
No need to debate fellow Republicans... there will be ample time to define one's positions prior to the general election, in debate with the Democrat, through publicity and advertising. Why give credence to one whose polling numbers are so low? Win the primary first.
Anonymous said…
Foley needs to let McKinney die on the vine by himself. There are enough establishment/suburban republicans in CT that are status conscious enough to be afraid to declare support for a "conservative" Foley. Also since there is little chance of taking back the legislature, he has restricted his proposals so far to safe ones (except the true spending freeze). I think that if he were to promise to be a true "firewall" governor, he could be successful.
peter brush said…
if he were to promise to be a true "firewall" governor, he could be successful.
----
There is no need to directly attack competing Republicans, but there is a desperate need to explain in the primary what is wrong in Nutmeg-ville and what can be done about it by a Republican Governor. Foley's politically pragmatic silence resembles willing blindness or cowardice, and as noted, will not put him in good stead to deal with the ideologically driven legislature.

Thing of it is, I believe that the political expedient thing at this point in Connecticut's descent might actually include a hair-on-fire fiscal focus, if not a full-blown conservative agenda. I'll never be accused of overestimating the Connecticut electorate, but I do think a majority may be ready embrace a leader who tells the truth, who faces reality directly. Foley doesn't have to attack or even mention McKinney. He does need to say that Connecticut has a spending problem and a long term debt emergency, not mere
"chronic budget shortfalls."
peter brush said…
Perhaps the media wouldn't tolerate a Republican addressing the dishonesty of the Connecticut Establishment, including that of our present Governor. But, it does seem to me that Mr. Pelto's rhetoric is both prudent and politically attractive. Prudent because addressing our mismanagement requires truth-telling, exposing the ongoing fraud, and politic because the electorate is at this point sufficiently aware as to be ready to be provoked to action.
Mr. Pelto won't get my vote, but he does get my appreciation, and I would hope his courage and thoughtfulness might get the emulation of a Republican candidate.
----
“The insiders have agreed that the best way to deal with Connecticut’s financial problems is to lie and mislead,” Pelto told The Mirror. “It’s a good thing that their statements aren’t made under oath, because our prisons would be full of politicians who perjured themselves by intentionally lying during the campaign.”
-----
“Working behind closed doors and without proper public and legislative review, the Malloy administration is attempting to roll out a new, and untested, State Innovation Model (SIM) that could adversely impact thousands of unsuspecting Connecticut citizens and the healthcare providers who treat them."

Popular posts from this blog

Obamagod!

My guess is that Barack Obama is a bit too modest to consider himself a Christ figure , but artist will be artists. And over at “ To Wit ,” a blog run by professional blogger, journalist, radio commentator and ex-Hartford Courant religious writer Colin McEnroe, chocolateers will be chocolateers. Nice to have all this attention paid to Christ so near to Easter.

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Did Chris Murphy Engage in Private Diplomacy?

Murphy after Zarif blowup -- Getty Images Connecticut U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, up for reelection this year, had “a secret meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the Munich Security Conference” in February 2020, according to a posting written by Mollie Hemingway , the Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist. Was Murphy commissioned by proper authorities to participate in the meeting, or was he freelancing? If the former, there is no problem. If the latter, Murphy was courting political disaster. “Such a meeting,” Hemingway wrote at the time, “would mean Murphy had done the type of secret coordination with foreign leaders to potentially undermine the U.S. government that he accused Trump officials of doing as they prepared for Trump’s administration. In February 2017, Murphy demanded investigations of National Security Advisor Mike Flynn because he had a phone call with his counterpart-to-be in Russia. “’Any effort to undermine our nation’s foreign policy – e