I’m not a fan of the cable-television festivals called “presidential debates,” because they rarely feature any substantial debates and the candidates don’t act presidential.
Maybe this is more evidence that I am what I am, a journalist who is a registered third-party person who doesn’t fit in America’s Republican-Democrat binary vise (rather like Megyn Kelly’s take here).
However, the producers at Lutheran Public Radio had an interesting idea for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). They asked me to prepare questions — thinking religion-beat, GetReligion-oriented stuff — that I would ask if (#ducking) I was the moderator at last night’s GOP presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Library.
I came up with 10 or so questions and I’ll share some of those shortly. However, I knew that the subjects that most interest me — as an old-school First Amendment liberal — would not be on this debate’s menu.
First, let’s deal with the orange elephant in the room. The New York Post, in it’s “exclusive drinking game for the second Republican presidential debate,” reminded viewers to:
Take a sip of WATER …
… every time Donald Trump is mentioned. This will keep you hydrated.
Later, the Post team offered these style points:
Take a sip of your drink …
… every time a candidate says “woke”
… when a candidate calls another candidate by an unflattering nickname
… when someone references the Biden Crime Family
… when a candidate uses a 3-letter acronym (think FBI, IRS, DEI, CDC)
… when a candidate tries to deflect when asked if they think the election was rigged
… when a candidate says they support Trump’s movement (but think they’re the one to finish the job)
… when a candidate interrupts someone else
… when a candidate mentions what state they’re from
… if a candidate wags his finger at another candidate while making a point
It’s all a matter of style, of course. You know that you’re in trouble when “woke” is the most serious political term in a list of this kind.
Obviously, the political desks of major newsrooms know that “religion” is a key element of these pre-campaign dramas — with “evangelicals” and serious Reformed Protestants dead ahead in Iowa (hat tip to journalist Timothy P. Carney).
Journalists want to ask: Is Ron DeSantis a Catholic (ask Clemente Lisi) or a hybrid evangelical? Ditto for former Vice President Mike Pence. How will Vivek Ramaswamy, as a Hindu believer, handle evangelicals? Ditto for Nikki Haley, as a convert to mainline Christianity after being raised in the Sikh faith (Note: I slipped up in the podcast when discussing Haley and said “Hindu” instead of “Sikh;” I don’t know why that happened).
Everyone knows that religion issues and identity are on the front burner in the GOP primaries. However, it’s hard to ask the question that “Crossroads” host Todd Wilken suggested: How do you describe your religious faith and how do you practice it?
No one wants a “religious test” for candidates, but everyone knows why the New York Times staff — “Facing Off in Washington, DeSantis Tries to Shake Trump’s Hold on Christian Right” — produces material such as this:
The overlapping speeches to the same two audiences highlighted the significant role that Christian conservatives will play in the 2024 nominating contest, beginning in Iowa, where white evangelicals are projected to be a sizable share of the likely electorate in January’s caucuses. Mr. DeSantis in particular urgently needs to make inroads with evangelical voters if he has any hope of closing his current polling deficit with Mr. Trump.
Quoting from the Bible and announcing new measures he would enact as president — including an executive order to ensure that private funding to nonreligious schools would also be available to faith-based private schools — Mr. DeSantis painted a dark portrait in his two speeches of a country suffering through a “national malaise,” with the religious right under intense siege.
He attacked the expansion of transgender rights, defended school-choice policies and invoked parental rights repeatedly. He also promised to repeal the Johnson Amendment, which forbids tax-exempt entities like churches from participating in political campaigns for or against candidates.
“The left views leftist ideology as effectively the national religion,” Mr. DeSantis had told the women’s group earlier in the day. “They will tolerate our faith — as long as it doesn’t impact their agenda.”
Read that passage a second time. Obviously, there are serious First Amendment issues in play. So why not ask questions about them?
Thus, when preparing my questions, I focused on serious issues that are currently in the news and, here is the key, are highly likely to surface at the U.S. Supreme Court in the next year or so. Here are a few of the questions discussed in the podcast.
* Do some Americans have a First Amendment right — citing religious-liberty concepts — to legal abortions at any stage in a pregnancy? Oh, and why are the abortion laws in some U.S. states to the legal left of, oh, Sweden?
* Should the U.S. State Department get involved in religious disputes in other nations, such as the Eastern Orthodox schism in Ukraine? Should religious believers from other nations who are homeschoolers be granted political asylum in the United States?
* Should liberal Christians, Reform Jews and others — making decisions consistent with the modern doctrines of their faith groups — be able to choose “gender affirming care” and transition surgeries for their children, even during elementary and middle school? How do these parental rights claims differ from those of believers who choose circumcision for newborns?
* Do you favor “equal access” to government programs offering aid to secular and religious PRIVATE schools? What about future neopagan schools or those linked to Satanic congregations?
* Under what circumstances should governments be able to require religious believers to submit to vaccines? Also, should business owners — citing their own religious convictions — be allowed to force employees to be vaccinated in order to remain employed?
* What pro-marriage and pro-child bills (perhaps addressing falling birth rates) would you support that you believe would be endorsed by Democrats for Life and other moderate Democrats?
OK, that’s enough. It’s a long list, with more than a few follow-up questions.
Before the broadcast, I emailed a few journalist friends seeking their input. One responded in time for me to include his thoughts in the podcast. Thus, here are two of the questions from journalism historian Marvin Olasky, best known for his years guiding World magazine:
"How does your moral vision differ from Donald Trump's?"
"Whose ego is bigger, yours or Donald Trump's?"
On the air, Wilken noted that he thought my questions would clash with a crucial reality — they were too fact-based and were impossible for candidates to answer in crisp sound bytes. After all, as ABC News noted, the format stressed:
During the debate, the candidates will have one minute to answer questions posed by the moderators and 30 seconds for follow-ups, according to guidance Fox sent to campaigns and obtained by ABC News. Those follow-up questions will be at the moderators' discretion.
That’s America, today. Contrast that with the famous political debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas:
In each debate either Douglas or Lincoln would open with an hour address. The other would then speak for an hour and a half. The first then had 30 minutes of rebuttal.
Enjoy the podcast and, please, pass it along to other people. Also, you can subscribe to “Crossroads” at Apple iTunes.
FIRST IMAGE: Graphic featured with “Burning Questions?” feature on the website of the Hespeler Baptist Church is located in Cambridge, Canada.