Hard Questions
Philip Bobbitt and John C. Danforth had an interesting op-ed piece in the NY Times this week. The two men noted that the major candidates of president have not given the voters any clear idea of their respective ideas on national security, primarily because they haven't been asked to do so.
...Both men are extraordinarily capable and their campaigns — which began against great odds — reflect that fact. And yet with respect to national security, neither campaign has articulated the fundamental points of view that will allow people to make an informed choice in November. ...
Here, then, on the anniversary of 9/11, a day when both candidates have chosen to put politics aside and appear together at ground zero, are a dozen questions we would like to see them address. ...
Twelve questions, each of them lengthy and designed to thwart ten second sound-bites, follow. While one might criticise the framing of each of the questions as evidence of the political leanings of the interlocutor (and that framing does indicate two people, not one, put the list together), the subject matter of the questions is such that it would be impossible to avoid the basis for the criticism. That said, all twelve questions get at the very heart of the matter of that too-often nebulous concept of national security. Here are two which I've selected because they reflect my own biases:
5. The Supreme Court recently held that prisoners taken in the war against terror are entitled to habeas corpus review in the federal courts. Is it sensible to speak of a “war” on terror, or is this a struggle that should be principally handled by law enforcement? Should suspected terrorists be given the same protections as ordinary criminals — like the right to confront their accusers and the right not to be tried by illegally obtained evidence? Or should there be special rules for the trials of terror suspects, or even a special court that would hold secret trials? ...
10. Political instability in the Middle East underscores the need for Western energy security. At the same time, the Group of Eight has set a goal of bringing global carbon dioxide emissions down to half their 1990 level by 2050. Realistically, there is little chance of achieving this target, nor of achieving real energy security, without drastically new technologies. What, if anything, should government do to increase domestic production of oil and gas, to expand the use of nuclear energy and to encourage energy conservation and new technologies? Which technologies do you favor and how should government promote them — or with high oil prices, would you leave this job to the market?
I'm not quite naive enough to believe that any journalists would actually ask these questions, whether at a candidate's "debate" or on a Sunday morning talk show. At the same time, I see no reason why a major newspaper, such as the NY Times, doesn't provide the candidates space on the opinion pages to answer at least one of the questions. Bobbitt and Danforth even invite such a response in this piece. It would at the very least require each candidate to actually formulate an answer that gives some clue as to their vision of actual national security, which would serve to educate the voters who actually do care about such matters.
I know, I'm asking a lot of the candidates, the voters, and the press, but at this stage in our history, I don't think I'm asking too much.
...Both men are extraordinarily capable and their campaigns — which began against great odds — reflect that fact. And yet with respect to national security, neither campaign has articulated the fundamental points of view that will allow people to make an informed choice in November. ...
Here, then, on the anniversary of 9/11, a day when both candidates have chosen to put politics aside and appear together at ground zero, are a dozen questions we would like to see them address. ...
Twelve questions, each of them lengthy and designed to thwart ten second sound-bites, follow. While one might criticise the framing of each of the questions as evidence of the political leanings of the interlocutor (and that framing does indicate two people, not one, put the list together), the subject matter of the questions is such that it would be impossible to avoid the basis for the criticism. That said, all twelve questions get at the very heart of the matter of that too-often nebulous concept of national security. Here are two which I've selected because they reflect my own biases:
5. The Supreme Court recently held that prisoners taken in the war against terror are entitled to habeas corpus review in the federal courts. Is it sensible to speak of a “war” on terror, or is this a struggle that should be principally handled by law enforcement? Should suspected terrorists be given the same protections as ordinary criminals — like the right to confront their accusers and the right not to be tried by illegally obtained evidence? Or should there be special rules for the trials of terror suspects, or even a special court that would hold secret trials? ...
10. Political instability in the Middle East underscores the need for Western energy security. At the same time, the Group of Eight has set a goal of bringing global carbon dioxide emissions down to half their 1990 level by 2050. Realistically, there is little chance of achieving this target, nor of achieving real energy security, without drastically new technologies. What, if anything, should government do to increase domestic production of oil and gas, to expand the use of nuclear energy and to encourage energy conservation and new technologies? Which technologies do you favor and how should government promote them — or with high oil prices, would you leave this job to the market?
I'm not quite naive enough to believe that any journalists would actually ask these questions, whether at a candidate's "debate" or on a Sunday morning talk show. At the same time, I see no reason why a major newspaper, such as the NY Times, doesn't provide the candidates space on the opinion pages to answer at least one of the questions. Bobbitt and Danforth even invite such a response in this piece. It would at the very least require each candidate to actually formulate an answer that gives some clue as to their vision of actual national security, which would serve to educate the voters who actually do care about such matters.
I know, I'm asking a lot of the candidates, the voters, and the press, but at this stage in our history, I don't think I'm asking too much.
Labels: Election 2008, the Press
posted by Diane at 3:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home