Moral Moments in the Democratic Debate

There was no direct talk of religious faith in last night’s Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire.  But there was talk of honesty, courage, and moral leadership — attributes for which voters sometimes use faith as a proxy.

John Edwards emphasized not just his current anti-war stance, but his willingness to admit he was wrong to vote to authorize the war in 2002: “It is important for anybody who seeks to be the next president of the United States, given the dishonesty that we’ve been faced with over the last several years, to be honest to the country.”  That was a slap at Hillary Clinton.

Joe Biden pushed integrity in a different way, arguing we must be honest that Congress can’t cut off funding for the Iraq war without enough votes to override a presidential veto.  “You need 67 votes to end this war. I love these guys who tell you they’re going to stop the war.” That was a slap at John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel — and to some extent the frontrunners, Clinton and Barack Obama, who voted against funding the Iraq war.

Kucinich and Gravel — the lefties of the bunch — had their own idea of honesty: Democrats should face up to their culpability for authorizing and enabling the Iraq war.  That was a slap at almost everyone else on stage.

John Edwards, seeking to improve his flagging poll numbers, sought to show that he was a leader against the war — not someone who, like Clinton and Obama, would go “quietly to the floor of the Senate” to vote against the recent bill to fund the Iraq war.  “The job of the president,” Edwards said, “is not to legislate, but to lead.”  Edwards has a point, there.  And no matter what 10-point plans a president has, the bully pulpit is really where presidents make or break their legacies.

Obama was the first one to use something like religious language when he called veterans’ health care a “sacred obligation.”

The moral debate heated up, though, when the issue of Darfur arose.  Joe Biden was perhaps the most vehement on the issue, temperamentally at least, arguing that the government of Sudan forfeited its sovereignty when it decided to commit genocide.  He said NATO could take out the janjaweed tomorrow — but we need to stop talking and start acting.  While we talk, “another 50,000 people will be dead!” he shouted, with some old-fashioned, finger-wagging, moral indignation.

Richardson was even more blunt: “America should care about Africa and we don’t.”

Edwards tied Darfur into the bigger issue that America no longer has the moral authority to lead.  We should be doing more in Africa not only on Darfur, but also on HIV-AIDS and education.  Obama broadened the issue still further, insisting that the U.S.’s legitimacy as a world actor is compromised by our human rights abuses at Guantanamo and revocation of habeus corpus for accused terrorists.

On the budget, Chris Dodd said our fiscal policy should reflect our “moral values” — echoing the often-used line of religious progressives that a “budget is a moral document.”

A funny moment for me came when Hillary Clinton said we had to focus like the “proverbial laser” on Pakistan’s anti-terror record — using air quotation marks in a manner reminiscent of Dr. Evil describing a sophisticated heat beam from the 1960s called a “laser.”

The particulars aside, I’ve got to say: I’m liking this crop of candidates.  They look sharp.  When the general election comes around, we’ll likely be in good hands, whoever wins the primary.  I don’t mean to sound like a DNC press release.  But I’m telling you: almost all of these candidates have something compelling about them — Edwards’s conviction, Clinton’s practicality, Obama’s calm command, Bill Richardson’s deep experience, Biden’s passion…and so it goes. 

I’m glad I’m not taking sides in the primary.  For the time being, I’m digging just admiring these folks.