Progress
The Economist has a very nice sum up of the last Presidential debate of the 2008 season.
The last word
"Mr McCain drew sharp contrasts with his opponent. He insisted that Mr Obama believes that the government has the answers to America's problems whereas Mr McCain puts his trust in ordinary people (in one amusing slip of the tongue he seemed to address Mr Obama as “Senator Government”). He dwelt at length on an offhand comment that Mr Obama made to a small-businessman called Joe the Plumber about “spreading the wealth around”, instantly turning Joe into the most famous plumber since the operatives who broke into the Watergate complex.
Mr McCain managed to land some good jabs on his rival. He pointed out that he had broken his promise to take public financing for his campaign (and thus limit campaign spending). He noted that Mr Obama's solution to every problem is to spend more money. He attacked Mr Obama for (unfairly) pretending that there is no difference between him and the present incumbent. “I am not President Bush”, he said at one point. “If you wanted to run against President Bush you should have run four years ago.”
All good stuff. But Mr McCain also made two big mistakes. Bringing up Mr Obama's association with Bill Ayers, a former terrorist, made him look petty on a day on which the Dow Jones had lost 8% of its value and people have much bleaker issues on their minds. The second—and more serious—lay in his body language. Mr McCain let his contempt for the younger man shine through, harrumphing, grimacing, smirking and goggling his eyes whenever Mr Obama got a chance to speak. The whole performance was reminiscent of Al Gore's sighing in his debate with George Bush in 2000, which many people think contributed to his defeat.
Mr Obama's performance during all this was remarkable. He remained calm and unflustered. He listened respectfully to his opponent. He took every opportunity to change the subject to economics and the woes of the average American. He even turned Mr McCain's assertion that he associated with Mr Ayers to his advantage, claiming that the people he associates with, on economic issues, are Paul Volcker and Warren Buffett. If many of his arguments were weak—he gave no sense of how he would reconcile his spending plans with America's giant deficits—his body language was impeccable.
The instant polls all gave a big victory to Mr Obama. Mr McCain made the debate exciting, but Mr Obama got the better of the evening, surely increasing his already high chances of victory in November."
It does look like I will be voting for Barack Obama, at this point. Last night's debate, and the comparison of temperament and intellect that it offered, I think sealed the deal for me.
But I was very glad that John McCain was there, last night, to offer some important contrasts in policy options, especially on matters of markets, health care, and education, all areas where I think McCain has generally stronger policy positions.
One of the values of debate is to expose our weaknesses as well as highlight our strengths. Most of us who debate policy probably do not appreciate that purpose as well as we might and should. I know I didn't as a debater in high school and college. And I'm sure I don't appreciate it enough, at this point in my life, either. All of us want to have all the answers. I am no exception. I'm probably more guilty of it than most, in all likelihood. And even good men and women need the contrast, the clash, the comparison, and the healthy sense of competition to improve our thought processes and our more fully developed ideas and arguments about how we think the world is.
The beauty of debates like the one last night is that it reminds us that our thinking about how the world is is just that: it is our all too limited thinking. Our minds are not and never will be complete maps of the world and all of its complex realities. Our minds are, at best, incomplete, and always developing maps of the territory of existence. There is no one person, no one candidate, no one party, no one ideology or religion, no one group or government. There is no one who has all of the final answers about anything. Nothing. No matter how genius and no matter how important those answers and the challenges they address might be.
Humility, more than final answers, is one of our most important assets when approaching our most serious problems, especially those problems that affect all of us or large numbers of us, those we call political.
Debate and discussion, shared reflection, open-minded liberal democratic engagement is our most valuable tradition, I believe, especially in liberal democratic discussions, for addressing and sorting out our most serious challenges.
Our ability to substantively address challenges based on reasoned reflection and communication is what distinguishes modern liberal democracies from the barbarism of the largest bulk of human history. It is our ability to reason and to engage one another that allowed modern liberal democratic societies to thrive while others struggled more to address similar problems. It is our free exchange of ideas that makes us stronger and better individuals and societies, over time. There are no guarantees that we will have all the answers we need. But free exchange makes it more likely.
And last night's debate, more than the rest of the election, illustrates the strength of liberal democracies: our capacity for engaged and substantial thought on the most serious matters we face, in lieu of aggression and violence to solve problems it cannot possibly solve.
It is a value that we clearly take for granted. And we are clearly foolish to do so.
And progress is what occurs when we take this much more fundamental liberal democratic value more seriously.

