The Johnson Debate Dodge

My Keloland colleagues Todd Epp and Cory Heidelberger are doing a good job on the story.  Tim Johnson has announced that he will not debate Joel Dykstra in this year's Senate race.  Cory has this:

Sorry, Dems, but on this issue, we have to accept an unspinnable fact: Senator Johnson has conceded that Senator Dykstra can outperform him in one important skillset for a United States Senator: public speaking. Senator Johnson now needs to make the case that he can outperform Senator Dykstra in enough other areas to earn our ballot.

Todd Epp says this:

From a political strategy point of view, Johnson's decision not debate and its timing are brilliant.

Brilliant, but bad for our democracy.While sometimes contrived and stuffy and limiting, debates allow citizens to see the candidates discuss a broad range of issues, face one another, and allow citizens to compare and contrast in a "one stop shopping" setting.
Political debates are good for our democracy. 

Further, I am not aware of any candidate for major office in SD since 1986 refusing to participate in at least one debate. Rep. Tom Daschle debated Sen. Jim Abnor in 1986. Sen. Larry Pressler debated Ted Muenster and a couple of other third party candidatess in 1990. Rep. Tim Johnson debated Sen. Pressler in 1996. Rep. John Thune debated Sen. Johnson in 2002. Thune debated Sen. Tom Daschle in 2004. I also think every single gubernatorial candidate during that time debated.

I'm not quite sure that debates are as important as my colleagues think. They are very rarely debates in any real sense.  Politicians usually concentrate on three things to the exclusion of everything else: getting in good sound bites, drawing the other guy into committing a gaff, and above all, avoiding the gaff yourself.  Still, I agree that they serve one important function: they allow us to get to know the candidate, or at least, the public face of the candidate.  And if they often tell us nothing about what the candidate himself really thinks, they at least tell us what the candidate thinks we want to hear. 

As Cory and Todd point out, the reason that Tim Johnson is dodging the debate is that he and his organization think it will do damage to his campaign.  But the real question, as Cory notes, is this:

we Dems would do better to acknowledge and accept Senator Johnson's own honest explanation: he's just not recovered enough to make a public debate a fair fight.

And that statement opens the door for the honest question: If Senator Johnson cannot handle a public debate, is he the best candidate for the U.S. Senate?

Pat Powers put it this way:

So far the media and electorate have been patient in giving Johnson the benefit of the doubt on whether he's up to another term in the US Senate. Unfortunately for him, his camp has now removed all doubt, and it is not in his favor. 

This is pretty convincing evidence that Senator Johnson is not up to the job, and that while his staff can carry him just so far in an effort to save their jobs, there are some things on which they just cannot fake the job description.

I would not go that far.  However important debates are, they are different from the job a Senator does day to day.  Nor do I think it fair to call Johnson a liar for telling Keloland, nine months ago, that he would participate in "a debate."  That would only be a lie if he was already planning to duck the debates, and that would require evidence.  Maybe Johnson was only being overly optimistic. 

Still, Pat's view of Senator Johnson's competence is not unreasonable.  In a televised political debate, nothing is at stake except face.  On the floor of the Senate, great questions of public policy may be at stake.  If Tim Johnson can't handle the one, can he handle the other? 

I am not convinced that Tim is not up to his job as a Senator.  He has implicitly conceded that he is not up to the job of running for another term. This is not to say he can't win.  I am not sure that he can be beaten, given his presence in the state, along with the weakness of Republicans in general this time around.  Public affection alone might make him invulnerable.  But to ride back into office on those things alone is neither graceful nor responsible.  Tim should have withdrawn some time ago.  He should seriously consider doing so now.