Reflections on the PBS Maryland debate

October 4, 2007
Joshua Herring, RA analyst

I was looking forward to the Sept. 27 Maryland debate on PBS between the Republican presidential candidates, held at Morgan State University in Baltimore. To me, however, the debate turned out to be a great disappointment. I could see it coming before the candidates even walked out onto the stage.

My disappointment had nothing to do with the six presidential candidates who attended. In fact, the performance of the candidates, overall, was something I enjoyed — and I came out of the experience with a deeper respect for those candidates who showed up, most of whom found themselves in a very difficult position because of certain undercurrents that emerged at the outset of the event.

Every one of these national figures did their best to do what was asked of them, and they did so in a spirit of sincerity, cooperation, and goodwill — but they did so in spite of what they were faced with.

When is the debate going to begin?

After watching the first several minutes of the program, I began to wonder when the debate was going to start. The entire program was scheduled to be only 90 minutes long, which meant that from beginning to end, the six candidates would have only limited time to field questions and express their views. After about ten minutes into the show, having not even seen the candidates in attendance yet, I was already asking myself when the hosts were going to quit extrapolating on racially-oriented themes, introduce the candidates, and get down to business.

First, there was the opening speaker, Tom Joyner, who spent a few minutes talking about various and sundry things with a decidedly racial emphasis. Then the moderator, Tavis Smiley, was introduced and spent more time doing the same. The floor was then given to former Lt. Governor, Michael Steele, to introduce the candidates after briefly following suit. Once the candidates were finally brought out, introduced, and escorted to their respective podiums, each of them was asked to comment on how they felt about an open show of disrespect for the black community by the four Republican candidates who failed to attend the debate.

I'm not saying none of these things had any value or import. What I'm saying is that in a debate with six candidates scheduled to last only ninety minutes, by the time the first real debate question was presented, twenty-three minutes of the program had passed. Essentially one-third of the total program was used by the initial three speakers to emphasize and reemphasize, first one way and then another, that racial bias and inequality still exists in America.

Was this a revelation to anyone watching? Was it wise to devote nearly one-third of such a short program to emphasizing this theme?

Candidates cut off

At the Values Voter Debate Sept. 17 in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, there were indicator lights to alert the candidates when their time to speak ran out. Obviously, each candidate can only be given so much time to respond, but there is nothing wrong with a candidate finishing his last sentence or thought briefly when his time comes to an end. Values Voter moderator Joe Farah was quick to point this out to a candidate who had cut himself off in mid-sentence to comply with the one-minute rule early in the debate. Farah assured him that only if a candidate were to keep talking to the point of excess after the light came on would he be interrupted.

This led to a very orderly forum in which there was no confusion and no struggle with the moderator. Farah ended up commending the candidates for their careful observance of the rules. In fact, he commented more than once about how easy they were making his job, and near the end Farah said he actually had time leftover as a result. So how did it go Thursday evening in Maryland with the same candidates minus John Cox?

There was disruption and confusion, but none of the candidates were the guilty party. There was absolutely nothing to warn the candidates that their time was coming to an end except for a moderator who, at exactly sixty seconds, cut in abruptly every time. Smiley absolutely refused to allow even one word a candidate might say to try and finish a thought or a sentence to go by unhindered by non-stop interruption — as in a very rude manner he talked over them — insisting that they stop instantly at sixty seconds or be subjected to such rude and undignified treatment.

Smiley was a very overbearing moderator, and this was true from the first round of questions. It was not a result of conduct on the part of any candidate that might have given him a reason to become so rude and boorish. Smiley acted as though he was dealing with a bunch of undisciplined school children, rather than dignitaries and statesmen from the very start.

The substance of the debate

What I am about to speak of next threw most of the candidates off-balance, though they tried not to let it show. Alan Keyes fared better in dealing with it, due to the fact that he is a black American who has spent a significantly greater amount of time considering the problems of the black community than most people. What am I talking about?

This debate wasn't about how the candidates were going to lead America, should they become president. Instead, the debate centered in this question: "Now, what are you going to do, specifically, for blacks if you become president?"

There are justifiable concerns that affect black communities and the lives of African Americans that need to be addressed (and Hispanics, as well, although not nearly as much emphasis was placed on them in the questioning). Furthermore, in a forum at a university that is predominantly black, it only stands to reason that quite a bit of attention would be focused on such issues. But this debate had a pronounced ambience that went further.

The atmospheric pressure created by the obvious attitude and mindset of those hosting the debate and those asking the questions threw most of the candidates. Nevertheless, they extended themselves, seeking to find ways to respond that would satisfy the questioners without violating their own convictions, or being disingenuous in an effort to please them.

But little by little, overt efforts by the candidates to find a way to please without being insincere began to diminish, and the atmosphere among the candidates began to loosen up. They began to speak freely in a more relaxed manner — after about forty-five minutes of what I just described — when there was barely twenty minutes left before the end of the program. Unfortunately, the debate had to be brought to a close early enough to satisfy the television network covering the event.

The outcome of the debate

Overall, Mike Huckabee did a little better than most of the other candidates. This was due to his overall sincerity, habitually relaxed demeanor, and experience as governor in a state where he dealt with things that were similar to the issues brought up at the debate. Ron Paul was as determined as ever not to violate his convictions for any reason, regardless of who didn't like it.

Therefore, Dr. Paul, while showing the strain he felt at times, did his best to try and make it clear why he believed his policies would benefit all Americans — including the black community — rather than tripping over himself looking for ways to sound as if his policies were especially tailored to benefit the black community.

Four other candidates tried to follow his lead, exhibiting varying degrees of stress and strain as they sought to present their views in ways they thought would be palatable in the situation they found themselves in. They all sought to hide any sense of awkwardness and discomfort they may have felt, and to deal effectively with the questions — at all times seeking to show what I believe was genuine respect for the concerns of the black community.

Dr. Keyes and the debate

Dr. Keyes was the only person on stage who was more relaxed than former governor Mike Huckabee. Dr. Keyes' responses simply displayed a composure born of notable political experience and long hours in prayerful reflection over issues of every kind. His comments were, as always, the words of a man of many and deep thoughts, articulated from the perspective of someone with a firm grasp of the issues.

At the same time, as he dealt realistically with issues that are of justifiable concern to the black community, Keyes did not pander to the hosts, the questioners, or the crowd in a black forum — as Barack Obama has done in similar situations.

While responding substantively to issues that truly concern the black community, Keyes also covered a fair amount of ground that was simply "American." Dr. Keyes did not hesitate to point out when something wasn't nearly as much "an issue of color" as his questioners might have been inclined to think.

Overall, Dr. Keyes gave those who support him good reason to be proud. As is so often the case, his responses were often deeper and involved matters of greater substance than the responses of those around him. Fortunately, despite the attitude and perspective of those hosting the debate and of those asking the questions, the crowd itself wasn't nearly as myopic in its sense of focus and perspective.

There were several times when Dr. Keyes' responses brought strong supportive applause. The people in the audience were obviously more concerned about the good of America as a whole than the debate's hosts. Dr. Keyes even drew applause amidst an assertion that trying to make one particular thing an issue of color wasn't a realistic perspective, bringing strain to the faces of the journalists who had been brought in to ask the questions.

Nevertheless, as always, Dr. Keyes spoke with understanding about things that are important to blacks and to all Americans. He did not try and gain an unfair advantage by seeking to satisfy the desires of the questioners. Keyes offered sincere, articulate, well-considered responses to the questions and let the chips fall where they may. He displayed the kind of wisdom and integrity his supporters have come to appreciate and expect of him.

A deeper concern than I have fully expressed at this point

What I've said thus far has been said mainly to inform and to set the stage for the real point of this article. The point I'd like to make goes right to the heart of what I believe to be one of America's most serious problems. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been maligned, often by his own people in the black community, because he doesn't place an inordinate emphasis on affirmative action programs for blacks.

The reason for this is that those programs are often a product of demagogues seeking to gain political support in the black community — through offering governmental "solutions," so called, that exacerbate problems rather than solve them. It isn't that Clarence Thomas doesn't care about his people; exactly the opposite is true.

By the same token, Dr. Keyes doesn't advocate such things, either. This is a result of concern, rather than contempt, for the black community. He knows that what black Americans need is not government programs, but truly equal opportunity and real encouragement to make the most of it — combined with an emphasis on solutions that deal with the root of their most pressing problems.

Alan Keyes knows that the most outstanding problems in the black community are rooted in the need to stabilize marriages, and thus add stability and security to families, and the need to strengthen and support other wholesome moral values in the black community. He also knows that all this depends much more heavily upon the church as an institution in America than on government.

Therefore, an effort to separate church and state in ways that prevent biblical principles, morals, and ethics from being emphasized as part of the solution is self-defeating. To quote part of Dr. Keyes' opening statement from the Values Voter Debate: "I believe the time is long past when we must lift on high the banner of our Creator, God, and never let it fall again, though we die for it!"

The destructive influence of leaders in the black community

I believe that self-serving black leaders like Jesse Jackson and those Democratic politicians who cater to them have been an extremely destructive force in the black community over the past several decades. The endless push for entitlement programs they can use to their own advantage in one way or another — combined with a total disregard for many things that are of far greater value to the stability of black families — has done a disservice to the people these leaders claim to be serving.

This has wreaked havoc in the black community, destroying a large portion of two entire generations of people as a result. Furthermore, this has contributed to increasing resentment and racial division among American people, rather than closing the gaps — at the same time destroying American society just as surely as a similarly myopic, inordinately self-serving, imbalanced perspective undermined the Maryland debate.

The audience attending the debate had no lack of appreciation for sensible answers that didn't make a racial issue of everything, and which at least part of the time focused on what America needs, rather than just focusing on the needs perceived by black leaders.

The biblical recipe for success is to give, not to take

Former American president John F. Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." When people can't see past themselves and what they want; when people are always looking for something extra at the expense of others; when people become willing to ignore sound principles and wholesome living, reaching a point where they expect to be rewarded for such behavior — such people are always a detrimental force, whether this takes place in organizations or in social groups.

Too many black leaders have been guilty of contributing to just such a mentality, forgetting that "sophisticated prejudice and elitism are still prejudice and elitism. Such things become no less troublesome and destructive with added sophistication." In fact, they poison the very well from which those under such leaders are drinking.

In his opening remarks, Tavis Smiley asserted that "when we make our communities of color better, we make our country better." I agree with this — but solutions born amidst shallow, biased, self-absorbed thinking aren't going to get it done. We cannot heal the breach and mend racial divisions by emphasizing them continually or refusing to allow them to die.

© Joshua Herring