I read, with a sense of deep contempt, that several Wyoming legislative candidates are refusing to engage in political debates this season. The reasons they give for their refusal vary, but it all boils down to political cowardice, pure and simple.
The fear of a cheap shot is the brand of a political coward.
These candidates, whom I won’t dignify by using their names, are afraid that they won’t be treated “fairly” by debate sponsors, like the venerable League of Women Voters. The League, as you know, has a decades-long history of hosting political debates in the Big Empty with great integrity.
For these yellow-bellied candidates to fret that the League won’t treat them with respect is hilarious. For them to deny voters a chance to see them in action because of political cowardice is a poke in the eye to our democratic process.
Can you imagine the Wyoming Cowboys refusing to play on CSU’s home field because they are afraid that the fans will boo them or that the cheerleaders won’t blow them kisses?
Extending the sports metaphor, any candidate for political office in Wyoming who won’t suit up and take the field in a free-for-all debate about the issues needs to stay on the bench.
Aside from fear of full-contact intellectual competition, perhaps there’s some other dark and greasy reason why the Cowards Caucus refuses to debate. Maybe they’re hiding something from us.
A structured political debate, with the back-and-forth dialog over questions, the rebuttal and cross-examination of ideas, tends to leave damn little unrevealed. Light gets shone on the dark little corners of rhetoric, and positions are brought out into the light of day.
Secrets are had to keep in a good debate.
But a politician who is afraid to have their secrets exposed and examined in a debate in front of voters, is someone who will operate in secret if they gain office.
If they are too cowardly to stand up on their hind legs and tell us what they believe in an open debate, rest assured that murkiness will find expression in how they behave as public servants behind closed doors.
I hearken back a couple of years to when David Iverson invited me to debate him on his podcast. David’s famous chrome-plated microphone is, most assuredly, NOT my home field. The resulting discussion was sharp but civil, and I think we came away with a better mutual understanding of how we each think.
If I had been too chickenshit to debate David, I would have missed out on having fun with the Redneck Bill Buckley and the chance to see issues important to me from another perspective. I hope we do it again.
That is the essence of political debate in our pluralistic system. From Lincoln/Douglas to Nixon/Kennedy, public debates have informed our body politic and clarified political turf.
For the Cowards Caucus to shy away from this exercise in civics like fraidy-cat children hiding in mom’s apron is more suited to a nation that is afraid to ask and answer questions….say, North Korea.
Our legislative bodies, at their root, are debating bodies where the public’s business is conducted openly. Anyone who fears this openness simply has no business in a legislature.
So, to the Cowards Caucus I would say, get over yourselves. Put on your big boy or girl pants and debate your points with your opponents in front of God and all the people. Put your ideas to the test of intellectual rigor and let us all see how you defend them.
Maybe it won’t be comfortable for you, but neither will it be comfortable on the floor of the House or Senate. If comfort is what you want, then stay wrapped up in mom’s apron.
Margaret Heffernan has said, “It is better to debate an issue without settling it, than to settle an issue without debating it.”
Let the debate begin.
Rod Miller can be reached at: RodsMillerWyo@yahoo.com
