• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

The commentary after last night’s presidential debate sounded like a ball game had just ended: who won, who lost and who was on the offensive.

The candidates put on an excellent show, proving it is possible to repeat the same thing in a thousand different ways. A recap, in case you missed it, would sound something like this: You are in danger and only I, (insert candidate’s name here), can protect you.

A majority of Americans believe that terrorism and the war in Iraq are the most important political issues of the upcoming election. Many watched last night’s debate because it was the first opportunity to see President Bush and Sen. John Kerry stand next to each other and explain how their respective plans would make America safer.

But the debate only reinforced the perception that the so-called war on terror is about nothing more than the occupation of Iraq and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The candidates trumpeted their victory plans while sharply attacking each other’s records. Much of the debate focused on who could most effectively kill more terrorists. Very little was said about the causes or consequences of our nation’s latest crusade.

While they both like reminding us that the world is different today, the candidates failed to give much meaning to the fact that the war on terror is unlike any other conflict in which we have ever been engaged.

There are no front lines and no enemy governments that can surrender. The United States is fighting individuals – many who are willing to die for their beliefs – and dispersed networks of sophisticated fighters.

Just as the debate ignored the nuances of the war on terror, it only glanced upon other important global issues.

Genocide in Darfur, Bush’s refusal to sign the Kyoto protocol and the merits of the International Criminal Court were barely mentioned, much less debated.

Both candidates are guilty of greatly simplifying the complex issues of foreign policy and homeland security.

Jim Lehr, the debate’s moderator, would have done the public a favor had he asked how America might preempt the ideology of terrorists rather than hunting them down, or what role ruthless globalization might have on developing countries.

The issues supposedly at the center of Thursday’s debate are vital. But voters shouldn’t believe, as the candidates seem to, that the cause and solution to international terrorism is found by merely “bringing them to justice.”

Reading for 90 minutes – the length of last night’s show – would leave many voters with a much more detailed and comprehensive understanding of the issues than watching the remaining debates.

Voters can only hope the candidates will put the issue of national security in a relevant framework when they address domestic issues such as taxes and the budget in the future.

But because a simplified debate is far easier to navigate than a nuanced one, the public will likely never know whether Bush or Kerry possess a truly comprehensive vision for the nation or a myopic blur of quick victories.