Presidential debates: democracy at its best

Sad Canadian system pales in comparison

Democracy in the United States is terribly broken, correct? Canadians know this to be true. There are the glitz, the attack ads, the “politics of personal destruction,” and money, money, money. In Canada, “U.S.-style politics” has become an easy shorthand for everything bad, corrupt, doomed.

Why, then, have the U.S. presidential debates been such an extraordinary, even inspiring display of intelligent democracy in action — whereas north of the 49th parallel, in sainted, morally pure and on-the-side-of-the-angels Canada, democracy is falling apart? Here’s one possible reason: U.S. politicos have the courage of their convictions. Canadians, as reflected through the prism of all three major parties, have lost theirs.

The televised presidential debates concluded Monday night, indeed the entire recent cycle of U.S. public politics including the Republican and Democratic conventions, have been a tour de force.

The quality of rhetoric, of subtle argument informed by passion and reason, in both parties, has been at a level this year that exceeds anything I can remember in the United States — that is, going back to the 1988 Bush-Dukakis campaigns — and anything anywhere now around the world. There were some fine debates in the British House when John Major faced Tony Blair. But that was a while ago, and sporadic.

There is nothing like the endlessly long, grotesquely expensive U.S. primary system for beating a candidate to a pulp, until he or she either collapses from intellectual, emotional and financial exhaustion or takes their political art to a new level. Obama the presidential contender was created by his bruising 2007-2008 battle with Hillary Clinton. Mitt Romney was transformed by his own primary beatings from Silver Spoon Boy into a legitimate and serious contender.

Romney entered the televised debates with his campaign in tatters, the butt of jokes. But then, in the first televised debate, a complacent Obama stumbled, and Romney rose. Vice-President Joe Biden entered the fray, beating back the upstart Paul Ryan. Then came the second presidential contest, with Obama and Romney circling each other like wolves, interrupting, cutting in. Obama won that, narrowly. And finally came Monday, which most observers agree was a slam-dunk for Obama.

The presidential debates were notable for the contenders’ cold courtesy. Where, one wonders, were the facile politics of personal destruction?

More the point: When has there ever been a political debate of comparable intensity, depth, and breadth, in modern Canadian history? There is, of course, the famous Mulroney-Turner fracas in 1984 (“You had an option, sir!”) which effectively made Mulroney prime minister. Since then, though, precious little; Canadian political debates are by comparison small, careful affairs with candidates neatly contained behind their lecterns, and involving too many players for a telling exchange. Of course there are only two debates, one French, one English. That makes it difficult to develop a narrative, or truly examine any candidate’s character under fire.

Moreover, in Canada, senior politicians increasingly are uncomfortable with free debate — at any level. Public policy dissent within a party is considered impolite, like breaking wind at a cocktail party. Party discipline ensures it is swiftly tamped out. For instance: Are any New Democrat MPs uncomfortable with leader Tom Mulcair’s characterization of the Alberta oilpatch as a net negative for the country? Undoubtedly. But don’t expect to hear from them.

For Conservatives and Liberals it’s even more egregious. The Harper government now rules by omnibus bill, rendering debate about specific legislative measures pointless or impossible. In Victoria, Premier Christy Clark shuts down the B.C. legislature, decrying its “sick” culture. In Toronto Premier Dalton McGuinty does the same, arguing the work of government is too vital to be encumbered by the tawdry bickering of a parliamentary system. And the federal Liberals, all but Gerard Kennedy, duck for cover, as though this is too complex a question for them to judge. It’s not complex. They are cowards for ducking.

Here’s what should happen: MPs and members of provincial legislatures, who are paid by the people to uphold the people’s interests, should assert their rights. They should insist on retaining or reclaiming their traditional powers as parliamentarians, and not be denied, or they should quit their respective parties. But they don’t, because all live in fear of losing place and position. God forbid, they might be denied nomination papers at the next go-round. They go along, to get along.

No question, the U.S system has flaws. But no one can credibly argue, after watching this series of debates, that it isn’t vibrant democracy, fractious and beautiful. In Canada, we can’t say that – not any more. Our democracy, besmirched by talking points, accommodation for the sake of power and decrees, is a pale shadow of what it was.

Next to the United States’ offerings this year, it is simply sad.