The First Presidential Debate---Soldiers On!

The first presidential debate is on again. After a great deal of prevaricating, during a week when business people, from what I heard mostly Wall Streeters, or previously on Wall Streeters, are urging Americans to stop prevaricating about the $700B bailout plan and get bailing. It turns out the candidates have not bailed. Yet. There are still a few hours left.

Though I am not privy to the actual reasons for not having the debate, as I understand it from skimming the headlines, John McCain thought it would be unwise to have a debate when the economy hung in the balance. Debates, after all, are not that important. We do live in a democracy after all. Why debate, when we can empower just one to determine what is right and wrong for the nation? We are a nation of deciders all.

In one way, I can relate to John McCain. Isn't this in fact what the campaigns want all voters to do? While I can't and won't ever match his service to the country, I can appreciate the ethical dilemma he faced when he thought the economy was sinking. (He is a Navy man.)

I faced what I choose to think was a similar dilemma on a few occasions during my teaching career. This is the what I shall label the problem of "real events overwhelming what the teacher had prepared for in the lesson plans."

This pesky and annoying problem, at least from my perspective, tore through my ordered world. The Gulf War announcement in 1991. Remember that? I was in class when a colleague told me American forces were moving into Kuwait. Should I have discussed the ethics of military intervention instead of following my lesson plan to debate and discuss athlete privacy issues that day?

And I don't need to mention it, but will: September 11. Should I have called class off? Or were we better off sticking to the lesson plan to wrestle with the moral responsibilities of sport team owners to the cities where they own teams?

So, perhaps unlike others who have no knowledge of this issue,I can understand McCain's dilemma. I am glad, however, that he decided to soldier on.

The first debate is supposed to be about foreign policy and national security. With that in mind, how can ethics be injected into the debate?

Below are a few teasers. Feel free as the election season continues (not much time until the end now!) to add your own questions about foreign policy and national security, taking ethics into account. And if you really want to get primed and prepared in this subject, go to the amazing website of the Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs. It is one of my favorite goto sites for these issues: www.cceia.org.

1. How and through what specific actions, can the United States regain its lost moral credibility resulting from our behaviors and actions in Guantanamo Bay?

2. What leadership role should the United States take in taking action on climate change?

3. What would you do as President of the United States to ensure fairer globalization for all nations? (Candidates love to entertain this idea, so you will get their undivided attention on this question.)

4. If you were elected President of the United States, what would the role of ethical considerations take in national security policies?

This is a start. I hope that events do not overwhelm either of the candidates. For our sakes and the nation's.