The Democratic candidates debated each other yesterday: not on TV, but on radio. It was, in my opinion, the best debate thus far.

Yesterday, the Democratic candidates debated each other in Iowa. The debate was hosted by NPR (radio). If you missed the debate, as did I, you can listen to it here. You can read some blogposts on it here (Red State), here (Daily Kos) and here (the Glittering Eye).

NPR itself reports the following:

The candidates were asked about a new National Intelligence Estimate that concludes Iran stopped work on its nuclear weapons program in 2003. The new report reverses the conclusion of two years ago that Iran was actively working on a nuclear weapon.

Clinton said she is relieved by the intelligence findings, and called on President Bush to pursue diplomacy with Iran.

Clinton has come under criticism from fellow Democrats for her September vote in favor of a Senate Resolution calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Obama — who skipped the vote while campaigning in New Hampshire — has said it gave President Bush a “blank check” to go to war against Iran. President Bush warned in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could trigger “World War III.”

Edwards said Tuesday that the Senate had a responsibility to stand up to President Bush. “It’s absolutely clear — and eerily similar to what we saw with Iraq, where they were headed,” he said. Edwards noted that Clinton is the only Democratic presidential candidate who voted in favor of the resolution.

Senator Obama pointed out that Iran continues to pose a threat to the other countries in the region, but he criticized President George W. Bush for ‘not letting facts get in the way of his ideology.’ Senator Dodd went on to add that although Iran certainly is a problem, the US can’t act unilaterally. However, he said, it would be difficult to act multilaterally because of the US troops in Iraq… which is quite silly and nothing but yet another call for an early withdrawal, whether the surge is working or not.

The most aggressive one was Joe Biden. He said that pressure didn’t cause Iran to halt its weapons program and added that Bush can’t be trusted. John Edwards once again criticized ‘neocons’ for rushing to war.

The candidates once again criticized Clinton for voting in favor of a law that, among other things, designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist activity. She, however, calmly explained that there was more to the law than the hosts and her opponents said, and that it did not “in any way authorize the president to take any action that would lead to war.” Frankly, one gets the impression that Clinton is the only Democrat who will stand up to rogue regimes, terrorist organizations, and so on. The other candidates seem to conveniently ignore the facts and act as if Clinton’s vote basically enables Bush to go to war with Iran.

Which is – again – factually untrue.

Clinton said that she’s in favor of aggressive diplomacy. This means that you’ve got to use the stick and you’ve got to show your enemy the carrot. She’s right.

Edwards criticized her, Gravel once again sounded like one of the two angry muppets from the Muppet Show.

With regards to immigration:

“The point is, we’re not going to deputize a whole bunch of American citizens to start grabbing people or turning them in,” Obama said. He called for a crackdown on employers who hire illegal immigrants, but added there should be a pathway for immigrants to achieve legal status.

Clinton agreed on the need for tougher enforcement against employers, while voicing some sympathy for the immigrants themselves.

“What we’re looking at here is 12 to 14 million people,” Clinton said. “They live in our neighborhoods, they take care of our elderly parents. They probably made the beds in some of the hotels we stayed in last night.” She added that immigration was not a big concern when the U.S. economy was producing more jobs.

Clinton said new immigrants should be encouraged to learn English, but she rejected a listener’s complaint about government telephone lines with a “Push 1 for Spanish” option. She pointed to the wide range of languages spoken in New York.

China:

“We have not been the best negotiators, and often times, we’re negotiating on behalf of Wall Street instead of Main Street,” Obama said.

Edwards echoed that view, saying big corporations are driving American policy toward China. “They get their way and the American people lose,” he said.

Clinton responded to a mother’s question about dangerous toys from China, saying the Bush administration has “essentially defanged the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”

Edwards and Dodd, who both have young children, vowed not to buy any Chinese-made toys this Christmas. “My toys are coming from Iowa,” Dodd joked.

Frankly, they’re all just demagoguing. China is one of the America’s major trade partners. Business aren’t moving abroad because they’re greedy, as such, they’re moving abroad because the US government regulates them too much, and because they pay too much in taxes. You shouldn’t punish those companies, you should deregulate and allow them to compete more easily. What’s more, it’s called globalization. Demagogues can fight it all they want, but they can’t stop it. Countries shouldn’t fight and oppose globalization, they should adapt to it. New challenges, new adventures, new opportunities. That’s how people – and politicians – should look at it. They, politicians, should take the lead in this regard. When people complain about the consequences of globalization, politicians should point out that globalization has helped America and every other country in the world (that adapts to it) and that globalization isn’t something to fear, but something to embrace.

Since when are Americans afraid of competition?

Same goes for European politicians of course. Too often they criticize globalization because they know that it’ll give them more votes. Well, sometimes leaders should actually take the lead and tell the people that they’re wrong when they’re wrong.

Now, I’m a bit harsh, because some of the candidates did call China a befriended nation, and a trade partner, etc., but the starting point always seems to be negative. It’s not. It’s positive. Both China and the US will benefit from a good relationship. What’s more, some people are even talking about making it more difficult for China to import goods to the US. The host basically argued that Americans will have to be forced to buy a $600 TV, made in America, instead of the $300 TV made in China. That’s absolutely ludicrous. You shouldn’t react mildly to such a claim, you should react angrily: what, you want Americans to pay twice the prize they’d actually have to pay? You want to make it even more difficult for middle class families to buy the goods they need / want?

Edwards even said that big corporations set America’s agenda with regards to China and that the average American suffers because of it.

No he doesn’t.

You will make the average American suffer if you force him to buy a $600 TV while he could also buy the TV for $300. Let Westerners adapt. We have to consider this an opportunity.

Obama, once again, said that Wall Street plays a major role in setting the agenda… what’s the problem with that? Of course major corporations do. If the US government would enact laws that would make it more difficult for these companies to make a profit, they’re going to fire many of their workers. And then America will truly suffer. Sometimes I’m hoping that Western governments would actually do that and that the people will find out what’s good for them the hard way. Tough love.

If you want to ‘level the playing field’ you’ve got to make it more easy for American companies to produce cheaper. You shouldn’t make it more expansive for Chinese companies to sell their products in the US. Competition is what improves the economy. It doesn’t hurt it. It’s called creative destruction, read The Age of Turbulence.

Conclusion: the debate format was, quite frankly, awesome. It allowed the candidates to explain their views into greater detail than we’re used of them, and radio doesn’t allow people to interrupt each other constantly nor to start shouting matches. In other words: not a lot of fireworks, but a debate about the issues. Debates should always be like this, whether that makes for great headlines or not. If televised debates approached the same level of discourse as this radio debate, my guess is that more Americans would tune in to them as well. It reminds one of how politicians and pundits debated each other in the US twenty, thirty years ago.

Winners and losers? Frankly, I don’t think there were any big winners, nor any big losers. What the format emphasized is that, although differences exist, most candidates know what they’re talking about and that Democrats have far more in common with each other than with their Republican colleagues.