CAMPAIGN WATCH : Rating the Debate

Public debates between candidates are a vital tool of democracy fallen on hard times. The dialogue that established debate as an American political institution--the confrontation between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas--altered half a nation’s conscience. Slavery was the issue in 1858, and the candidates met it squarely. No debate since has produced a statement of principle as majestic as Lincoln’s: “Just as I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.” None has yielded so shrewd an insight as the one Douglas later offered concerning his opponent: “His ambition was a little engine that knew no rest.”

Our own memories are less edifying: We recall the sweat on Richard Nixon’s upper lip, Michael Dukakis’ confusion and Ronald Reagan’s “There you go again.” It is this sense of lost opportunity, rather than who won or lost, that ought to concern us following the earnest but lackluster encounter between Democratic gubernatorial candidates John K. Van de Kamp and Dianne Feinstein.

In part, the deficiencies of today’s debates stem from their constricted question-and-answer format. A debate is not a press conference; it’s an argument. On those rare moments Sunday when genuine difference seemed poised to break out, the candidates were politely forced back into line. That was a loss for everyone. We’ll have plenty of time to watch the next California governor duck reporters’ questions. Until debates are again real debates, they will remain worthy disappointments.