Debate failed to engage voters

Like many Americans, I watched the presidential debate on Sunday evening. I heard the candidates talk about Whitewater, pardons and all the latest government programs recently served up by the Republican Congress and the Democrat president. I heard the post-mortems, too, as the pundits told Americans that Sen. Bob Dole showed great humor and his soft side, that President Clinton was a fine debater and a smooth talker, and that Clinton won the debate horse race even though Dole won the expectations game as polls showed that 74% of the people thought Dole did better than expected.

That's the way these things go. The focus is on the politics, not the substance. As one wag noted, commentators seem to watch the debates with the same attitude they watch the Indy 500: They want to see if there's a crack-up.

But after all the spinning by the partisans and pundits about what was said and how it was said, it is interesting to note what wasn't said -- particularly since nearly every commentator finds time to worry aloud about the lack of public engagement in this election.

Maybe the lack of engagement has to do with the fact that neither candidate was willing to use this 90 minutes of free time on national TV to challenge the American people to think nor to engage them in issues they need to care about, no matter what the focus groups say.

For example, we didn't hear a whit about the importance of North America and the Western Hemisphere in the global strategy of the U.S. -- perhaps because neither candidate has a global strategy.

Not a word was mentioned about America's highly vulnerable energy supply and how we need to develop policies and strategies for regions of energy abundance, such as the Western Hemisphere.

We heard only passing references to NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, even though polls show that the nation is deeply divided over issues of international trade. At the same time, opportunities for constructive economic leadership in Central and South America are withering on the vine and could lead to political and economic setbacks for the US in this very strategic part of the world.

There was no discussion of the judicial and political selection criteria that each would use for picking new members for the Supreme Court, even though the direction of the sharply divided court will be determined by the appointments of the next president as justices of advanced age die or retire during the next four years.

We didn't hear a single word about the revolution in telecommunications that holds so much promise for the American people, if the government would only get out of the way.

And if they wanted to talk about government programs, either of them could have talked about something like a home business equity act that would restore the home office tax deduction that was taken away by the Supreme Court in 1993, or initiatives to eliminate discriminatory tax burdens on the self-employed or to expand options for financing retirement.

So, on Sunday night two leaders and one questioner, PBS's Jim Lehrer, passed up an opportunity to connect with the American people, to give them reasons to listen, engage and participate. But all three failed. And the American people are the losers.