Held at the First Federated Church in Des Moines this debate felt more like a discussion among friends filled with plenty of emotional stories and talk of liberty and the direction of our nation. For the most part, I had a hard time seeing any real differences between the candidates - even the moderator mentioned how closely tied they all seemed to be. It seemed to me that the only candidate pushing to be seen as different was Santorum as he stated several times during the discussion – yes, I’m calling it a discussion – “here’s the difference between me and everyone else here”.
Even with Santorum’s pleas to be different it still seemed the candidates were very much on the same page on subjects that ranged from personal responsibility to morally justified war and several others. Of course, this being a church setting and a family focused discussion many of the topics covered were moral ones and each candidate even shared when they came to know God.
As the discussion of morality came to the question of personal responsibility in America; Cane adamantly answered “Freedom without responsibility is immoral” and was followed up by Perry’s exhortation that “there is only moral and immoral” stating that there is no neutral. Newt expanded on this topic by telling a story of the occupy Wallstreet crowd as they occupied a park they did not own and used bathrooms they did not pay for; while asking retailers to give them food that they did not want to purchase – all the while not considering that those retailers were paying the taxes for the very park and bathrooms the occupy crowd were using. In closing, Newt urged them to “Go get a job right after you take a bath”.
In the discussion on morally justified war I did start to see the candidates break away from each other. While they all seemed to be saying the same thing it became clear the difference in reasoning the candidates would use to determine why the U.S. should go to war.
Ron Paul came from a place of law and constitutionalism in denouncing every war since WW2 stating that they have all been “Illegal”. Cane – on the other hand - came from a place of pure patriotism in stating “The defense of freedom and the defense of liberty is the moral justification”. While he did not explain whether this meant the defense of those concepts specifically for our nation or for other nations; I certainly got the sense that his heart-felt response was directed to our nation. He went on to say “I will not send them into war unless I would send my own son or daughter.”
I was less enthused by Bachmann’s weak response that “I have to be convinced” and “there has to be a clearly defined interest” as these sentiments seemed much too broad and in my opinion not answers at all. Gingrich pulled the final and rousing applause on this subject by emphasized that “We frankly couldn’t care less what the rest of the world thinks; we’re going to get it done” in speaking of the possibility of militarily resolving issues in Iran.
All-in-all I think it was a great discussion and it’s very clear to me that the candidates are running on a platform of providing the people with a government that holds itself to a higher moral standard while also limiting its power and oversight – giving states more control as was originally intended by our founders. While republicans have always been the party of less government it’s clear that this group of candidates is bringing that concept to the forefront of their campaigns. Dare I say – it’s about time.
Have a different take on the debate or thoughts related to my post? Well – speak up then; I always welcome open discussion and input from different perspectives.
