That poor excuse for a debate

After watching that pitiful excuse for a debate last night, all I can say is, “Thank God for the Swift Boat vets.”

Why?

Because without them and the persuasive case they have made against John Kerry for president, I am quite certain he would still be the leading candidate for president today.

The debate last night focused on foreign policy and national security issues – President Bush’s strength, we’re told by the pollsters. It should also be Kerry’s weakness, given his vacillation on the war on Iraq and his own record of turning on American troops in Vietnam.

But that’s not the way I saw it.

I tried to view the debate through the eyes of an undecided voter. And what I saw was at best a standoff. Kerry was on the offensive all night. Bush was on the defensive.

During the debate, Bush said the best way to fight the war on terrorism was to remain on offense. I agree. But I wonder why he doesn’t understand the principle holds true in winning a debate, too.

There was plenty of heat, but not much light.

How much more interesting it might have been had the debate been opened up to include minor-party and independent candidates for president.

It is a national scandal that the Democrats and Republicans have been permitted to maintain a monopoly on political debate in this country. It’s not healthy. It’s a scandal. It so often represents a choice between bad and worse.

I was genuinely disturbed by watching that spectacle.

I heard nothing I hadn’t heard before from either candidate.

The format was a joke, too. Jim Lehrer’s questions were mundane, routine and predictable.

Not one question about illegal immigration – a national security crisis so severe even Time magazine recently discovered it.

Not one question about the United States continuing financial and diplomatic support for terrorists in the Palestinian Authority.

Not even one obvious question about the massive intelligence breakdown in this country that led to Sept. 11.

Pitiful. Pathetic. Predictable.

What we heard, as a result, were mere platitudes: “I can do better.”

If America is to remain a free and open republic, how can we allow our political process to be rigged and closed? How can we allow the level of debate to deteriorate to such a point?

My only hope for this race now is that Bush opens up a lead so substantial that independent thinkers are freed up to vote their conscience – to break away from the dualistic thinking that dominates the American political process.

It’s time to build viable third, fourth and fifth parties – to give us real choices, to ask tougher questions, to put new ideas on the national agenda.

I’m sure Bush would like to see such a lead open up, too. Yet, he didn’t help himself much last night. He didn’t make a strong case for another four years. And he didn’t do much to persuade the American people that his opponent is a clear and present danger to our national security – which he is.

Am I disappointed?

Well, as one who has seen a few presidential debates in my life – Kennedy-Nixon, Carter-Ford, Reagan-Carter, Reagan-Mondale and more – this one is forgettable by comparison.

No wonder tens of millions have stopped watching debates – just since 1992. No wonder fewer people are bothering to vote. No wonder fewer people are paying attention to the way their country is governed.

But apathy is not the answer. It’s time for Americans to renew the idea of self-government. In case you’ve forgotten, it means governing our own lives. It means taking responsibility for our own families, our own neighborhoods, our own communities. It means not waiting for some messiah of a presidential candidate to come along to save us.