Debates designed to lead to nowhere

WITH GROWING class inequality, the increasing threat of ecological catastrophe, two disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the worst financial upheaval in the U.S. since the Great Depression, millions of people are tuning in to the presidential debates in hopes that the candidates might offer some solutions to the multiple crises facing the world's population.

Yet despite all the rhetoric about "change," both candidates have offered more of the same establishment solutions.

Instead of demanding immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, we hear the candidates debating over whether Pakistan or Iran should be our next target. Instead of offering solutions that would help working people who are losing their jobs and their homes, both candidates lent their support to the massive bailout for Wall Street that will transfer $700 billion from working people to the wealthy. And instead of demanding a cut in the Pentagon budget, which is almost as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined, both candidates continue to claim that the economic crisis will necessitate cuts in social programs.

In fact, the political theater of debate masks the fact that the two mainstream parties agree on much more than they disagree. And one thing they certainly agree on is limiting the debates to the narrowest framework possible. That's why the Democrats and Republicans set up the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) in 1988 to ensure the two parties wouldn't have to be held accountable to the American people.

From 1976 until 1984, the non-partisan League of Women Voters ran presidential debates. The campaigns would typically submit a list of 15 questioners. The League would then eliminate some names, add others and send back a shorter list of proposed panelists. The campaigns were allowed to veto reporters if they were deemed "too biased."

Although the Democrats and Republicans had incredible control over the debates, it wasn't enough. In 1976 and 1980, they only vetoed one panelist. In 1984, however, all 12 names on the final list were rejected. When the League came up with another 71 names, 68 were rejected. Instead of backing down, the League held a news conference where they lambasted the campaigns for having "totally abused" the process. As a result, candidates were too afraid of public outcry to reject a single journalist from the second debate's panel.

But this fear only lasted through the 1984 election, after which the two parties emerged more determined than ever to gain complete control over the debates. In 1986, the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee ratified an agreement "for the parties to take over presidential debates." Fifteen months later, they created the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).

The CPD battled with the League of Women Voters for control over the 1988 presidential debates. Initially, both the CPD and the League were allowed to sponsor one debate. But as the League was preparing to negotiate on the debate format, the Bush and Dukakis campaigns demanded that the sponsors accept their "Memorandum of Understanding," which dictated every detail of the debates, ranging from the selection of panelists to the height of the podiums. The agreement even mandated that the campaigns be allowed to handpick their own audience.

Calling the demands "a fraud on the American voter," the League of Women Voters withdrew their sponsorship of the debates and issued a scathing press release in which they stated, "it has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions."

SINCE 1988, the CPD has become the sole sponsor of the debates, ensuring the exclusion of third-party candidates, unchallenging debate formats and a complete lack of accountability to the American people.

What is even more disturbing is that most board members of the CPD have ties to multinational corporations, including the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. The co-chairs of the CPD, Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr. and Paul G. Kirk Jr., were the heads of the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee in 1988. Now they are registered lobbyists for multinational corporations, whose income is directly affected by who gets elected.

As OpenDebates.org points out, "Kirk has collected $120,000 for lobbying on behalf of Hoechst Marion Roussel, a German pharmaceutical company." That might explain why, when the candidates call their health care plans "universal" (co-opting a term that used to be reserved for single-payer plans--which neither candidate supports), the moderator won't be clarifying their words for the voters.

Similarly, Frank Fahrenkopf "earns $800,000 a year lobbying on behalf of 18 corporations directly involved in the hotel/casino industry--ITT, Hilton--as well as most of the major investment banking firms–Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch." That could be why, although both candidates have tried to appear critical of Wall Street during the debates, we will never hear a moderator point out that they both supported the colossal theft of $700 billion orchestrated by ex-Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson in favor of the Wall Street bankers.

The debates are now "corporate carnivals," primarily funded by private corporations who are able to market their products and attempt to influence politicians and journalists who attend. The CPD allows corporations to circumvent the law and give money directly to candidates.

As George Farah, author of No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates said on Democracy Now! recently, "When a corporation gives money to the Commission on Presidential Debates, it knows it is giving money to both the Republican and Democratic Parties, supporting their duopoly over our political process and excluding third party voices that may be hostile to corporate power."

This is why when third-party candidate Ralph Nader brought a lawsuit against the CPD in 2000, on the basis that corporate contributions violate the Federal Elections Campaign Act, he won. Yet the practice continues, and third-party candidacies like Nader and Cynthia McKinney are once again being excluded from the presidential debates.

This is why when four New Orleans universities and a leading post-hurricane recovery group petitioned the CPD to have one debate in New Orleans this year, co-chairman Kirk stated that the groups "failed to guarantee adequate security, finances and logistics."

What Kirk couldn't say is that the CPD, the Democratic and Republican Parties, and the corporations that fund them don't want to have the serious debate about our country's future that the devastation and neglect of New Orleans demands.

That debate will never occur as long as the two capitalist parties control what is acceptable politics. The only hope of shifting the political debate to address the real concerns of Americans rests on the shoulders of the people. It's up to us to build mass movements that refuse to accept the corporate-dominated political terrain and force politicians of whatever party to address our concerns.
Adam Sanchez, Portland, Ore.