Let me say immediately that the vast array of candidates is far more acceptable as presidential possibilities than is the current holder of the office for which they are vying. On the other hand, a few are just not ready for that office, but could be in the future. I hope some of them will run for Senator or Governor in their home states.
All that aside, let me list a few of the positives and negatives, in general, that stood out to me:
Positives:
· There was some actual debate between a few participants
· Many of the pressing issues of the day were addressed
· There was no heavy rancor or demeaning rhetoric
· Some candidates have actual plans for approaching issues or problems
· Several candidates have a record of getting things done
· Some lesser known candidates had a chance to be better known
Negatives:
This was not the best set-up for “debating”
- too many participants
- too little time for answers
- no structure for actual debate
- unequal opportunity for participation
- questions were not always the best in terms of formulation
- Not enough time to get into depth on the issues
- Technical difficulties affected momentum
- No time or inclination to get down into the “how” (the process for making change happen)
My Biggest Disappointments:
- not enough reference to specific ways in which Trump is flaunting laws, negatively affecting national security and denigrating America’s image and values in the eyes of the world
- not enough time to describe the details of “plans” for change,
- no major references to the importance of process; i.e. how one goes about making change happen; the ‘nuts and bolts’ of governing
- lack of reference to how one might involve more citizens and groups in the process of governing
- and maybe, of most immediate importance, a lack of steps that must be taken to stop the outrageous treatment of migrant children on our southern border
My Comments and/or Suggestions:
- Start with a limit of Five candidates on stage, with perhaps an entirely different procedure, to wit:
- Each candidate gets to expound on their most important issues for 12 minutes without interruption (60 mins.)
- Each of the other candidates, in turn, gets to question the speaker’s presentation for 6 minutes without interruption (30 minutes)
- A total of 30 minutes is then dedicated to head-o-head challenges of each other’s questioning or issue (30 mins.)
- Each candidate gets 4 minutes to summarize their most crucial points without interruption (20 mins.)
- If the purpose is actual debate, then every issue should be put in terms of a debatable proposition (such as: ‘Medicare-for-all is the most effective way to resolve our health care crisis’); limit the number of issues; set time limits
- If the purpose is to introduce and expand knowledge of lesser-known candidates, let each have certain amount of time to present their ideas and plans, with time then given to a panel discussion critiquing each presentation immediately after it is given, ending with original speaker’s final words of rebuttal to the critiques
- Don’t mix the two purposes or candidates of wide variance in polls
- Make process question – the “how would you do that?” question – part of every issue; for example, require every candidate present to give at least 2-3 specific steps they would use to implement whatever plan or answer they give in general terms
- what kind of manager/leader that candidate might be
- whether the process s/he proposes promotes equal or elitist; fair or unjust outcomes
- whether or not their vision or purpose is possible or probable
- how the vision or proposal might affect us personally
- what other entities might need to be involved like departments, outside vendors, sub-contractors, experts, etc.
- whether democratic values and freedoms will be advanced or undermined
- how long might the proposed process take to implement fully?
I might seem overly concerned about these matters of process, but in the current context, concern is an imperative given the numbers of voters willing to risk our form of government by buying “pig-in-a-poke” Trump with his extensive record of messing-up, mis-using or mis-managing process, such as:
- children of immigrants dying or suffering physically and mentally at our southern border because he can’t figure out how to manage a crisis of any kind
- the needs of 80,000 federal workers affected by his “government shut-down”
- failure to get Mexico to pay for a border wall (and wanting to build one in the first place)
- gross ineptitude for choosing and maintaining excellent managers for the departments of the Executive Branch of government
- undermining of relations with other countries
- a bumbling, fumbling approach to health care reform
- threatening national security by withdrawal from certain treaties such as the Paris Accords
- and these are just a few examples of his many managerial/process debacles.
SO, what is the LAST HURRAH?
The "Last Hurrah" is the end of a performance; the conclusion of a run of shows; the last round of applause acknowledging that something of value has passed from the scene. Are we there yet? Are we almost there? Are we just on-the-way?
Should Donald Trump, and enough of his pusillanimous puppet-pal Senators, be re-elected, I would say that would be the "Last Hurrah" for our magnificent experiment in representative democracy. Unless, the Democratic ticket and Senatorial candidates can pull-off a victory of major proportions in 2020 elections.
BUT, here’s the rub: even if the latter were to become reality, the Democrats in the White House and the Congress must be on a Mission of Destiny to lead the way out of a system that is flawed and not working for many of our people. Many of the of the ideas and changes that we need were mentioned in Wednesday’s and Thursday’s debates, but how we will get there was inadequately addressed.
Since I have never shied from presenting suggestions for how to ‘do’ things, I will mention some of them here:
1) Amend the Constitution, examples:
a. establish new amendment process instituted by the People
b. abolish the Electoral College
c. establish 12-year term limits for all members of Congress
d. limit justices to 20-year terms
e. reverse the Citizens United decision and unequivocally state that corporations (or any other organized entity) cannot be considered eligible for constitutional rights reserved to individuals
2) Pass meaningful reform legislation that includes procedures for implementation, examples:
a. continue the reforms of HR 1, including: voting reform, campaign finance reform, ethics reform for public servants
b. begin legislating the provisions outlined in the Green New Deal
c. carefully restrain the right of each House to determine its own rules of procedure by adding a caveat such as: “provided no rule gives unbridled power to one person or group, or allows one member to place a restriction on consideration of any piece of legislation"
d. make access to Information a broader right than it is currently; set time limits for responses; open up access to congressional office/staff activities and discussions; limit, or clearly define, what can be considered “secret’ or ‘classified’
e. enlarge description of Congress’ power to “establish a uniform Policy and Procedure for Immigration and Naturalization; also, restrict presidential power to make immigration and naturalization policy
f. strengthen the power of Congress to appropriate all money from Treasury, and consider:
- terminating all special arrangements in the Tax Code that provide subsidies, rebates, exemptions or any special consideration to certain individuals and groups; in other words, make sure any reasonable rebates or subsidies are only granted for the purpose of addressing broad needs of citizens
- instituting fairness in the Tax code by requiring special provisions or tax breaks be common to all tax brackets, or by ‘trade-offs’ for special provisions that are equal in value to each bracket
- require all money appropriated by Congress for any reason or purpose to a contractor or sub-contractors, grantee, country, or any entity be subject to an annual (or more frequent) evaluation or audit that measures specific goals for use against actual accomplishments; reports of such should always be made public
3) Reform operating procedures in the House (and Senate if control shifts)
a. get rid of partisan rules and procedures
b. use a problem-solving model to get things done
- require professional training of all members and staff in the techniques of problem-solving
- ensure that every piece of legislation has a Title that is devoted to explaining its Purpose, the problem(s) to be solved, and the process by which it will be implemented and evaluated
- begin use of bi-partisan Task Forces (not committees) to find and report on ways to resolve particular problems; each TF dedicated to one issue or problem with deadlines set for reporting
d. outlaw the filibuster and 60-vote cloture; return to simple majority vote on legislation
4) Involve ordinary citizens in the governing process
- Town Halls; ad hoc issue group
- formal advisory councils or groups to advise on issues and problems
- real surveys of constituents, expertly produced
- attachment to Inspector General offices to assist in evaluations, audits, investigations, reports non-partisan candidacy (and consumer advocacy) training
While this attention to process “nuts and bolts” is not particularly attention-grabbing, it is a necessary exercise in determining just how prepared candidates really are for information gathering, representing constituents, managing government structures and implementing rhetorical ideas and principles of our constitutional framework.
This matter of translating policy into fair, equal, effective and efficient procedures is vital. Without proper attention, implementation goes awry, and we end up with nuisances like:
-- long lines at voting places
-- machines that don’t work
-- hardware and software that are out-of-date and inadequate for information-gathering, implementation of procedures, and outcomes that serve a good purpose for the people
-- confusion amongst consumers as to how to apply for and acquire government benefits, services, aid, or opportunities
-- Worse: we get corruption, manipulation, contracts that waste tax dollars, departments that can’t function as they should
-- Much worse: we get children incarcerated in detention centers at our southern border (and elsewhere) without adequate care at any level of their existence; denied their rights; living with filth and uncertainty; lacking family contact, even denied the re-creative aspects of outdoor play.
When we allow corrupt politicians like Donald Trump to get away with manipulating policies and procedures in order to punish, frighten, intimidate and isolate people, we begin to understand why we must require more precise answers to that “Exactly How Will You Make This Happen?” question.
Just like policy statements, procedures can be racist, corrupt, discriminatory, unjust, cruel and harmful.
We cannot, and must not, ignore the procedures and implementation techniques of either our politicians or of our corporate big shots. Not only is such ignorance costing us in terms of money and influence; it could cost us our lives and our planet!
