Debates

The first of three debates between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump was shown live yesterday.  Two more are forthcoming, October 9 and October 19, before the Americans decide in November whom they shall elect.

The much-awaited initial debate moderated by Lester Holt started with the issue of jobs and job creation.  Hillary warbled about investing in the future, about education programs, providing clean environment, an advocacy she shares with President Barack Obama. Through these, she hopes to not only provide alternative sources of energy but create jobs as well.  She did the populist tack about raising national minimum wages and incentivizing profit-sharing among big companies, while supporting small business.  It was the traditional Democratic line, and hewed closely to her popular nomination rival Bernie Sanders’ platform.

Trump’s appeal to the American worker was a protectionist tack.  “Jobs are fleeing the country, for Mexico and other parts,” he claimed.  And China was using the US of A to build its own economy, devaluing its currency, and stealing work opportunities from Americans.  He cited examples of Ford and Carrier, known all-American brands, relocating their factories to Mexico, and vowed not to allow these under his watch.  Further, he promised tax cuts never before seen since Reagan, another Republican, was president.  And he vowed to review what he termed to be unfair trade agreements, such as North American Free Trade Alliance as well as prevent the Trans-Pacific Partnership that Obama is pushing Congress to approve.

Hillary chided Donald for his “trumped up, trickle down” approach to the economy, and beamed about what her husband did for the US economy in his time, and how Obama pulled off the same economic feat after the crippling recession of 2006-2007 when millions of Americans lost their homes and savings, a result, she said, of the abuse of the trickle down by companies that took advantage of federal policies the Republicans presided over.

Presidential debates are not only venues for leading voters to decide on which programs and policies are better. More importantly, they are mirrors of the character the candidates possess.  They show their ideological biases, and the differences, if any there may be among the candidates.  These biases either appeal or turn off large segments of voters, whether sectoral, as in business or labor, even racial, such as white or black Americans, Latinos or Asian.

From where I sat, it seemed Clinton was the more prepared, but somehow she did not come out dispelling the distrust that a large segment of the voters had.  She was not refreshing; she was “traditional.”  More of the same.

 It’s a pity that Trump did not step up to the plate either.  He was dissembling, he was at times caught fudging facts.  While he appealed to the disenchanted average American fed up with booms and busts that led their lives no better than before election after election, he was unable to clearly present how cutting business taxes could really perk up the economy and bring in more jobs.

They were both uninspiring on foreign policy and security issues.  Trump was daring when he said America should stop being the world’s “policeman,” an advocacy which sat well with an inward-looking America, but did little to assuage fears of continued world insecurity due to terrorism.  Clinton, on the other hand, vowed to pursue the same mutual defense agreements America has with a host of countries and regional groupings, but neither came up with definitive stands, even on countering the growth and dangers of ISIS.

In fine, the first US presidential debate failed to go beyond the same doubts and fears people had about the two candidates.  One was so prepared, so “coached,” the other was inconsistent, even prevaricating or at best, dissembling.

The beauty of American politics is the two-party system, which fits their presidential system well.  In the Philippines, a confused situation prevails, where the same presidential system is fed with a multiplicity of parties, rather, a multiplicity of candidates fueled by ambition more than ideological differences.

 In the last elections, for instance, Binay would sound pro-business and at the same time populist.  People would ask thereafter, “Ano ba talaga, kuya?”  Grace Poe likewise.  Everything that sounded good and pleasing she espoused.  She came out being bland and uninspiring.

Mar Roxas hewed close to the yellow brigade’s mantra of “kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap,” and chest-thumped about the PNoy administration’s claims to integrity while sidestepping the issue of incompetence.

Duterte was the only one different: he was authentic, and did not have any pretensions.  He let his Davao governance speak for itself, while hatching down on the issue of law and order, and the focus against drugs and crime.

In the end, the debates brought out a two-party, two-person debate.  And the actual election results showed it:  Duterte versus Roxas.  But the margin was huge.  Those results were a clear rejection of what voters believed to be official incompetence, ineffectiveness, and pretension.  And their appreciation of authenticity, sincerity and political will.

We also had three debates.  The first (Cagayan de Oro) was a toss-up between an authentic Duterte and a well-prepared Poe.  The second was a knock-out against Binay, with Duterte up-ending Poe with that issue of what three things she would first do if she was awakened in the middle of her sleep and told that China’s navy had attacked our coast guard vessels.  Mar Roxas was on staying form in that second debate in Cebu, while Poe was clearly stumped by Duterte.

In the final round, Duterte had the wind already beneath his wings, such that even Roxas good performance failed to puncture the Duterte eagle-soaring.  The rest was history.

Sure, I agree with many analysts who said Clinton won this first debate.  But it was not a knockdown performance, and Trump believers are expected to remain loyal to their champion.

There are two more to go, and both bear watching.  In the last Philippine elections, the Cebu debate won it for Duterte.  There were nervous moments for his handlers after that, principally the Australian rape remarks.  But it seemed people had made up their minds and no amount of mudslinging or self-inflicted wounds would change that.

In the Clinton-Trump contest, both sides have a lot more of electoral excitement to arouse in the next 45 days or so.  It could be a cliffhanger till the end.

Clinton will have to get Americans afraid of the “change” that Trump promises.  Trump will have to trump those fears that Clinton and the Democrats will try their very best to blow-up.