CNN’s climate forum shows what is wrong with the Democratic Party’s debate plan – By Chris Reeves (Daily Kos) / Sept 8 2019
CNN’s Town Hall on Climate Change was longer than Wim Wender’s underground cut of Until the End of the World, clocking in at seven-plus hours. Like the film, the forum the Democratic presidential candidates participated in was about the potential end of the world. The end wouldn’t be caused by a nuclear satellite, as Wim Wenders predicted, but due to man-made climate change and whether or not we intend to save the planet for our progeny.
Why was the forum so long? Because no Democratic candidate wanted to enter the primaries without talking about an issue that motivates a large part of the young voting base. Young people have put climate issues front and center, noting that they can impact everything from immigration to crime, not to mention the divide in access to solutions, which disproportionately impacts communities of color.
Young people have seen celebrities go to South Dakota and North Dakota to protest pipelines, and global leaders worry about the impact of sea levels, ongoing storms, and cities at risk. They understand the risk. Speaking to members of the Democratic National Committee in support of a climate debate (rather than a forum like the one televised by CNN), I asked this question: If an asteroid was headed to earth, would there be any question about what kind of debates we have? Would we not want an actual debate about how to solve the pressing problem?
Forums, like the one held last week, help clarify where our candidates are, and we should appreciate their willingness to do them. There is no real scientific debate regarding climate change. There are, however, a lot of potential paths we can take to help address the issues at hand. The public deserved to see a back-and-forth debate between the candidates—and there are still ways for the public to get it.
How many debates is too many debates?
As members met to discuss resolutions and map out a nomination strategy, Democratic National Committee executive director Seema Nanda informed the group working on a climate debate that there was simply “no path forward” to considering more debates, or any changes in them. Answers from different members of the party ranged from “It is up to the networks” to “Candidates don’t want endless debate.”
Speaking from the stage and talking to membership, DNC chair Tom Perez noted that President Obama complained that the 25 debates in 2008 were harmful to his campaign, and that the 12 debates proposed by the party for 2020 are a huge improvement over 2016.
There are logical problems with this presentation. While campaign staffers noted that too many debates could “take candidates off the door,” the reality is very few people—unless you live in Iowa or New Hampshire—expect to have VP Biden show up at their door with campaign literature and a survey. Presidential campaigns simply aren’t built the same way as a race for your state representative.
The other problem with the argument that there could be “too many” debates should be obvious:
In the 2008 cycle, the Democratic Party held 25 debates. We elected President Obama.
In the 2016 cycle, Republicans held 19 debates and forums, where multiple candidates were on stage frequently. They won.
In the 2020 cycle, Democratic candidates will have 12 debates: six before Iowa and six after. Forums, on the other hand, can only have one candidate on stage at a time.
As we stood in line addressing the membership with the arguments in favor of a climate debate, Bill Owens, a DNC member from Tennessee, brought forward a message directly from former Vice President Al Gore. The message was simple: We are running out of time for this debate, and it is what the people want. Elizabeth Warren, Tom Steyer, Kamala Harris, and Joe Biden tweeted or stated their support for a climate debate.
Privately, Sens. Harris, Sanders, Booker, Klobuchar, and Warren all said they were prepared to debate anywhere. The frequency of getting major press for free is attractive to campaigns, far more so than the fear of talking about issues they believe in.
There is still hope for a climate debate
The easy answer for campaigns and others is to simply say: “Aw shucks, well, we did a forum, and they won’t give us a debate,” but in truth, Seema Nanda was correct: It is the networks who make the final call on the kind of content they handle within their debate. Campaigns have an opportunity to lead.
Democratic campaigns can begin by demanding—today—that at least one climate change question be included in every debate going forward, including the upcoming debate this month. Climate change isn’t an issue that deserves just one forum a year. And separate from an election, it is a chance to remind the public about important issues.
In every single debate, candidates will discuss the economy and rights, as well they should. Why not spend some time talking about a global crisis? Just a few minutes, if you’d please.
Listening to the CNN forum, so many questions illustrate why the need for a real climate change discussion is important. Questions were often phrased as though working on the climate would destroy our economy (far from it!) and our candidates endure it because, well, it is the network’s choice.
The public has a role, too
Yes, campaigns have a responsibility to ask for climate questions, both in the primary and in the 2020 general election. The public and Democratic voters also have a responsibility to remind networks that now is the time to talk about our climate, and the impact it has on all of our lives.
People who advocate for a climate question or attention to the environment aren’t asking much. Just, you know, a question or two as a way to discuss the survivability of earth-based species. It may not seem as important as whether or not you can buy an old-style lightbulb, but it might matter to a lot of voters, especially younger voters, come 2020.
People who opposed a climate debate aren’t bad people
Some of the individuals who spoke out against a climate debate have garnered a lot of negative pushback. While I was supportive of the climate debate, many of the arguments against it reflect the basic problem I believe we have with regard to how we have structured debates in general. Problems that impact social justice, economic justice, health care, and other issues are incredibly important and should get time. In fact, they do get time, repeatedly, in every single debate. The reasoning behind why people petitioned for a climate debate is due to the fact that unlike those other issues, there simply hasn’t been a longstanding public discussion about climate change.
Those who opposed a climate debate did so for many reasons. Some believe it is difficult to discuss an issue that many see as far-reaching, when communities are suffering right now and face existential threats that could be life-ending tomorrow. Others who lobbied against a climate debate worry that the issue could be bad for a Democratic campaign in 2020.
These are strategic reasons, and they are based on experiences in their states and in their communities. I understand and can respect their viewpoint, even if I disagree.
The most compelling argument made by those opposed was simple: If the campaigns themselves and the people want it, get the networks to decide this is what they will do. And on that point, they are correct.
Bis Ans Ende Der Welt
Nick Cave, in the soundtrack for the Wenders film, said:
Some things we plan
We sit and we invent and we plot and cook up
Others are works of inspiration, of poetry
Let future generations know that in a few moments, we were struck by inspiration, by poetry, by the desire to protect the world for them. We acted, we did something.
There is still time.
