The 90 minutes of dueling sound bites that we dignify as presidential debates are not feasts of reason, but they usefully illustrate the axiom that there can be indecent exposure of the mind as well as of the body. So, some questions for Tuesday night.
For him: Can you share a tantalizing detail or two of your plan to end Russia’s war against Ukraine “in 24 hours”?
For her: Is it important to prevent Russia from erasing a nation from Europe’s map? If so, would you end restrictions on Ukraine’s use of U.S. weapons against military targets in Russia?
For him: You say that if you had been president in 2022, Vladimir Putin would not have invaded Ukraine in February 2022. Would he have feared your vigorously opposing the invasion? Would he have been correct?
For her: Would you invite some of your party’s pro-Hamas faction to a White House screening of videos compiled from cameras of Hamas’s Oct. 7 butchery?
For him: Do you worry that your “America First” rhetoric and distrust of U.S. allies might provoke nuclear proliferation, with nations hitherto feeling secure under the U.S. nuclear umbrella (e.g., South Korea) potentially acquiring nuclear weapons?
For her: The small number of U.S. ballistic missile interceptors might not deter an enemy from contemplating a disarming nuclear first strike. To lessen the likelihood of this, would you favor an intense program, akin to John F. Kennedy’s drive for a moon landing, to strengthen ballistic missile defense?
For him: JD Vance says “a million cheap knock-off toasters aren’t worth the price of a single American manufacturing job.” Do you, too, believe that no cumulative consumer benefits can compensate for any churnings of U.S. employment?
For her: Your party’s platform, which is longer than Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness,” begins with a bromide (“Our nation is at an inflection point”) and leaves no banality unemployed. (Small businesses are “the glue of our communities”; farmers are “the backbone of our country.”) Even worse, 26 times the platform boasts about “cracking down” (or some permutation of that phrase) on this or that. Doesn’t your party’s enjoyment of punishing make it sound like a dominatrix?
For him: Aggregate 2022 revenue of Fortune 500 U.S. companies equaled more than one-third of global gross domestic product, yet your party’s platform insists “we are a Nation in SERIOUS DECLINE.” Elaborate.
For her: Your party’s platform accuses your opponent of “stacking the Court” by appointing judges that please his party. Are you vowing not to do likewise? Do you support progressives’ plan to pack the Supreme Court by legislating term limits to force the retirement of three conservative justices?
For him: Your party’s platform says “corrupt politicians have robbed Social Security to fund their pet projects.” Do you understand that during the decades that Social Security revenue exceeded outlay, both parties melded the surplus with general revenue and spent it?
For her: Your party adores “diversity,” except when it doesn’t. Are you sad that federalism enables 26 states to choose right-to-work laws, protecting workers from being forced into union membership? Do you favor a national law to extinguish right-to-work diversity?
For him: Accepting the 1984 Democratic presidential nomination, Walter F. Mondale said: “Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.” Because of your candor in promising high tariffs, which would be taxes paid by consumers, are you not a Mondalean?
For her: “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel” (Genesis, 49:4). What research changed your thinking about banning fracking, imposing a single-payer health-care system, questioning cash bail and the existence of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, calling the southern border “secure,” etc.? You have jettisoned so many of your long-espoused convictions, why should voters believe the sudden restocking of your mental pantry?
For both: A joke perennially pertinent in Washington concerns an economist and a normal person falling into a deep pit with sides too steep to climb. The normal person exclaims, “We’re trapped!” The economist placidly replies, “Don’t worry, we will simply assume a ladder.” What do each of you assume — torrid economic growth forever, 20 million elderly Americans moving to Australia, whatever — to justify your shared promise not to alter Social Security and Medicare, which are driving the nation off a fiscal cliff as their trust funds disappear?
