Editorial: Candidates ignored chance for real debate

The commentary after last night’s presidential debate
sounded like a ball game had just ended: who won, who lost and who
was on the offensive.

The candidates put on an excellent show, proving it is possible
to repeat the same thing in a thousand different ways. A recap, in
case you missed it, would sound something like this: You are in
danger and only I, (insert candidate’s name here), can
protect you.

A majority of Americans believe that terrorism and the war in
Iraq are the most important political issues of the upcoming
election. Many watched last night’s debate because it was the
first opportunity to see President Bush and Sen. John Kerry stand
next to each other and explain how their respective plans would
make America safer.

But the debate only reinforced the perception that the so-called
war on terror is about nothing more than the occupation of Iraq and
the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The candidates trumpeted their victory plans while sharply
attacking each other’s records. Much of the debate focused on
who could most effectively kill more terrorists. Very little was
said about the causes or consequences of our nation’s latest
crusade.

While they both like reminding us that the world is different
today, the candidates failed to give much meaning to the fact that
the war on terror is unlike any other conflict in which we have
ever been engaged.

There are no front lines and no enemy governments that can
surrender. The United States is fighting individuals ““ many
who are willing to die for their beliefs ““ and dispersed
networks of sophisticated fighters.

Just as the debate ignored the nuances of the war on terror, it
only glanced upon other important global issues.

Genocide in Darfur, Bush’s refusal to sign the Kyoto
protocol and the merits of the International Criminal Court were
barely mentioned, much less debated.

Both candidates are guilty of greatly simplifying the complex
issues of foreign policy and homeland security.

Jim Lehr, the debate’s moderator, would have done the
public a favor had he asked how America might preempt the ideology
of terrorists rather than hunting them down, or what role ruthless
globalization might have on developing countries.

The issues supposedly at the center of Thursday’s debate
are vital. But voters shouldn’t believe, as the candidates
seem to, that the cause and solution to international terrorism is
found by merely “bringing them to justice.”

Reading for 90 minutes ““ the length of last night’s
show ““ would leave many voters with a much more detailed and
comprehensive understanding of the issues than watching the
remaining debates.

Voters can only hope the candidates will put the issue of
national security in a relevant framework when they address
domestic issues such as taxes and the budget in the future.

But because a simplified debate is far easier to navigate than a
nuanced one, the public will likely never know whether Bush or
Kerry possess a truly comprehensive vision for the nation or a
myopic blur of quick victories.