I’m not a fan of Mark Sanford. I’m not a fan of his record, nor his disrespect for the responsibilities of his prior office, nor most of his political philosophies. I’m hoping he’s defeated in the upcoming special election against Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch, and laughed off the national political stage. So imagine my surprise when I wound up actually agreeing with him… and under the most bizarre of circumstances.
Today, Mark Sanford “debated” a cardboard cutout of Nancy Pelosi. When I saw the headline, I chuckled, and assumed Sanford had gone off the deep end a la Clint Eastwood and the chair at last year’s RNC. Give it a watch. You’ll probably laugh. I know I did.
Sanford’s tactics may be enough to bring out a snicker or two, and some of his comments had me rolling my eyes, but if you pay attention to those first few moments, you begin to understand why he’s doing it:
Since Elizabeth won’t debate, I’m left to debate Nancy.
Technically, that statement isn’t entirely accurate. Elizabeth Colbert Busch has agreed to one debate; Mark Sanford wanted four. The sentiment, however, is clear: she’s dodging direct engagement with Sanford.
The Colbert Busch campaign has argued that this is not the case, stating that the condensed campaign schedule makes being out on the road critical in this final stretch. I’m moderately sympathetic to that claim. I’m not sure that debates aren’t a better way for the public to get to know the differences between them, nor am I sure that one debate comes close to being sufficient, but that’s not the point. The problem is that the decision to only participate in one debate is not really about time constraints; it’s about strategy. As an article from The State reports:
The lack of debates has some wondering if Colbert Busch’s campaign is trying to shield its novice candidate from the politically seasoned Sanford, who has never lost an election and has a tried-and-true debate style.
“Sanford is folksy and at ease on the debate stage,” said Scott Hoffman, a Winthrop University political scientist, adding he could only recall one debate during Sanford’s 2002 gubernatorial run against incumbent Gov. Jim Hodges when he didn’t come out looking good. “I assume that her strategy is not to give him a platform to perform well and argue issues, but rather let the election be more of a referendum on his personal character.”
To be fair, it’s a strategic move on both ends. With Sanford losing national Republican financial support for his campaign, insisting on debating more makes all the sense in the world. He gets visibility without having to pour money into ad campaigns. With Colbert Busch ahead in the polls, her reasoning for rejecting the debates is equally sound, strategically. Why give Sanford a chance to beat back some of the spread? Why give him a shot at making himself appealing again?
Why? Because the voters deserve better.
The idea of dodging public debate is nothing new. Colbert Busch could easily have said no to any debates at all, and it would have been far from controversial. Last year, Peter Roskam (R – Illinois) refused to debate his opponent, Leslie Coolidge, at any point in the campaign, despite a much longer election cycle. He still handily won reelection, perhaps lending validity to the Colbert Busch approach. And he’s not alone.
The problem is that these strategic decisions, while effective in achieving the goals of the campaign, are not in the best interests of the constituents in question, nor for the democratic process in general.
While the structure of political debates is enough to make someone with actual debate experience cringe, it’s still the best way for voters to contextualize the messages of the candidates in question. For incumbents, it’s a chance for the public to directly question their recent votes and get answers in a visible forum, while simultaneously gaining insight into the manner in which the opponent would approach similar issues. Even at their most scripted, debate exchanges still do a better job of highlighting policy and ideological differences between candidates than the spin of campaign ads.
Perhaps most importantly, these debates are as close as many of us will ever get to evaluating the capabilities of a political candidate under pressure. In debates, they have their ideas directly challenged. They are forced to defend those ideas. It seems a simple exercise, but being able to mount such a defense – and being able to do so in a persuasive manner – is a big part of the job as a politician. Every day, you’re working to push your ideas forward, and to evaluate the ideas put forth by others. While a campaign debate is not the same thing as holding office, it gives us an idea of how a candidate might promote their ideas and engage with others if elected.
And really, if you’re worried about a debate demolishing your chances of electoral success, do you deserve that success to begin with? If you’re incapable of defending your positions to the people who elect you, why should anyone think you’ll be able to do so in Congress? If you are capable, why avoid a chance to showcase it? If you’re worried that a verbal misstep will be your undoing before the election, shouldn’t voters be worried that you’re susceptible to making similar mistakes ahead of crucial votes on Capitol Hill?
Rejecting debates may be a winning strategy for individual candidates, but it’s a loss for the voters. On this, Mark Sanford and I agree… even if it is for very different reasons.
THIS IS AN OPEN COMMENT POST. FOR MORE ON WHAT THAT MEANS, CLICK HERE.
Lauren Nelson
Lauren is the founder and Editor-in-Chief at Cogent Comment. She also works as a communications strategist, and is an active advocate for victims of sexual violence, and for LGBT equality.
Follow Me:
The post When Mark Sanford Gets it Right appeared first on Cogent Comment.
