A Real Debate? (Op-Ed By Todd A. McKinley)

Image provided by Author

Note from The Tennessee Conservative: Editorial statements in this column are the sole opinion of the author; they do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the staff of this publication.

Submitted by Todd A. McKinley –

For the record, this isn’t an attack on any Gubernatorial candidate, but I think every 4 years in the Volunteer State we should demand 3 real debates, one in each grand division with differing topics, but I’ll settle for at least one this year.

I have tinnitus and when I sit in a silent room, the ringing is very pronounced. To combat this, I often have background noise on, sometimes music, often Rat Pack ‘Esque or a podcast, history documentary or a television show, even ones I’ve seen many times, all just to offset the ringing. While wondering what I should write my second op-ed with The Tennessee Conservative about, my background noise happened to be Season 7, Episode 7 of The West Wing titled “The Debate,” and I thought to myself, what will it take to witness a true debate amongst current Republican Gubernatorial candidates in Tennessee and not something akin to a glorified candidate forum, where a couple of softball questions are tossed out by Republican insiders who’s likely already been strongarmed beforehand anyway, which means the candidates will not have a real discussion, no real cross examination, in short no real debate(s).

In the episode in question, Alan Alda who played Arnold Vinick, the Republican nominee, opens the debate by suggesting having a real debate by scrapping the agreed upon rules so that no candidate can hide behind rules or run the time out. Playing opposite him was Jimmy Smits portraying the Democrat nominee Matthew Santos, and when it came to his turn to speak, he accepted the idea of scrapping the rules and have (as he put it) “a real debate.” Ironically, in the prior scene another character is advising Jimmy Smits’ character and essentially stated that the rules are their friend and that if he gets into trouble to pivot to a talking point or stump speech line and run out the time allotted for the answer, which only ensures the voters hear tested stump speeches and safe talking points, in other words, no real debate will take place.

When it comes to debates, we Tennesseans should demand real ones, and ensure the frontrunners participate and not settle for campaigns ran on talking points and photo ops, nor should we allow anyone to hide behind a lot of outside money or personal wealth. We shouldn’t settle for anything less.

Nearly 8 years ago, our current Governor, Bill Lee held a firm grasp on 3^rd place, and it appeared that the two frontrunners who had money and name recognition were prime to run away with it and settle it amongst themselves. Then negative campaigning (and other variables) allowed for a solid 3^rd place candidate (who I supported) to slingshot around the other two candidates like a last lap NASCAR pass by staying positive and on message. 

However, I must ask, and this shouldn’t be controversial, but would Governor Lee had won the Republican nomination if a true debate (or series of debates) been held in 2018? Or would the nomination have gone to former Congresswoman Diane Black or Businessman and current University of Tennessee President Randy Boyd? Their negative attacks aside, would any number of debates have changed who ultimately received the GOP nomination or was the writing on the wall once the negative attacks got out of control? I don’t say that to attack Governor Lee and say he wouldn’t have won, but it’s a question that I’ve mulled a few times since.

I realize that frontrunner status can be a comfortable and warm cocoon, plus if a candidate has a large war chest it’s easy to see why one wouldn’t want to stand up and truly be questioned and examined. But, as a voter, to me, this type of strategy should only be employed only in the waning days of a campaign, when/if a candidate’s lead has been built up by months of real campaigning. I can understand holding fast at that point, after all, in the final days if a candidate is so far ahead, then to me they’ve likely made their case to the voters by campaigning. Remember, a campaign isn’t about safe photo ops, surrogates or endorsements, but about the people. A campaign should be spent talking with people, listening to them, asking and answering hard questions, making one’s case to the public, which a real debate would help ensure.

As a voter, I want to know why taking questions from regular Tennesseans is seemingly taboo for some candidates at all levels these days. To me when someone isn’t willing to debate or answer hard tough questions, it tells me that their campaign platform has more to do with advisors and donors than it does about the candidate. That’s why I would love to see a series of debates across the state, at least one in each grand division, so that we Tennesseans can have our concerns and issues addressed openly and fairly and not through social media posts, press releases and spiffed up ads peppered in with attacks from outsourced PACs.

While a basement campaign strategy can be beneficial if election day is just a few days away and holding a lead simply boils down to taking a knee and running out the clock. It’s also a strategy if a person can pull endorsements, has wide name recognition and a cult of personality around them and expect that to suffice and often it does. But we voters shouldn’t allow it, as we learn nothing about the candidate, but a lot about what a few others want us to think. In other words, it stifles our ability to form a more rounded opinion, which debates help sort out.

Again, as a voter, as an everyday person, should we settle for entire campaigns being ran this way? I say no! In other words, candidates shouldn’t be allowed to ride out a campaign in a bunker like riding out a storm. Nor should we allow our candidates to only attend friendly events or events manufactured and scripted by the campaign, nor should we accept only controlled interviews with safe media outlets. 

I say all this, not to point at or praise any specific Republican candidates, but to rally conservatives to demand real campaigning, and we should demand real spirited debate. With countless problems facing our communities, our state and our nation, we voters should not only demand a real debate, but we should also demand one. As I’m finalizing this article, the only candidate to say he would be willing to debate is Representative Monty Fritts. He told me point blank, “I’ll debate anytime, anywhere, just let me know.”

About the Author: Todd A. McKinley is a retired U.S. Army Paratrooper, Afghanistan and Iraq combat veteran, co-host of the Commonsense Conservatives, veterans advocate, author and local office holder. www.toddmckinley.com