A Vigorous Foreign-Policy Debate Between Clinton and Sanders

A Vigorous Foreign-Policy Debate Between Clinton and Sanders

A Vigorous Foreign-Policy Debate Between Clinton and Sanders

A long-overdue debate has opened.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

Saturday’s Democratic debate in New Hampshire provided stark contrast to the Republican “fear and loathing in Las Vegas” imbroglio last Tuesday. Republicans dished out bombast and bluster, while the three Democratic candidates offered policy and purpose, reminding Americans that we are strengthened when we abide by our values rather than trample them in panic.

Sadly, far fewer voters watched the Democratic debate than the Republican invective. This failure was the perverse design of Democratic National Committee head Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL). As she must have known, scheduling a debate on the Saturday night before Christmas across from an NFL game would discourage viewers, not attract them. Democrats drew a little over 8 million viewers; Republicans an estimated 18 million. Wasserman Schultz has scheduled a limited number of debates at obscure times—a disservice to the country and to Democratic voters—in what appears to be an effort to protect the front-runner, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

Wasserman Schultz compounded this disgrace last week by going nuclear over a breach of Clinton voter data by some staffers for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), cutting the Sanders campaign off from access to its own lists. Sanders had to file suit to regain access. Wasserman Schultz would do the party and the country a great service if she resigned and formally joined the Clinton campaign. That may be the only course of action that would keep the young activists whom Sanders has inspired from concluding in disgust that the party apparatus was rigging the rules to favor Clinton.

Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

We cannot back down

We now confront a second Trump presidency.

There’s not a moment to lose. We must harness our fears, our grief, and yes, our anger, to resist the dangerous policies Donald Trump will unleash on our country. We rededicate ourselves to our role as journalists and writers of principle and conscience.

Today, we also steel ourselves for the fight ahead. It will demand a fearless spirit, an informed mind, wise analysis, and humane resistance. We face the enactment of Project 2025, a far-right supreme court, political authoritarianism, increasing inequality and record homelessness, a looming climate crisis, and conflicts abroad. The Nation will expose and propose, nurture investigative reporting, and stand together as a community to keep hope and possibility alive. The Nation’s work will continue—as it has in good and not-so-good times—to develop alternative ideas and visions, to deepen our mission of truth-telling and deep reporting, and to further solidarity in a nation divided.

Armed with a remarkable 160 years of bold, independent journalism, our mandate today remains the same as when abolitionists first founded The Nation—to uphold the principles of democracy and freedom, serve as a beacon through the darkest days of resistance, and to envision and struggle for a brighter future.

The day is dark, the forces arrayed are tenacious, but as the late Nation editorial board member Toni Morrison wrote “No! This is precisely the time when artists go to work. There is no time for despair, no place for self-pity, no need for silence, no room for fear. We speak, we write, we do language. That is how civilizations heal.”

I urge you to stand with The Nation and donate today.

Onwards,

Katrina vanden Heuvel
Editorial Director and Publisher, The Nation

Ad Policy
x