The nation can breathe a sigh of relief. Kailey Ellis is no longer forced to stand on her feet for science class at Sarasota High School. Al Gore, however, has some explaining to do.
During his presidential debate Tuesday night with George W. Bush, Gore cited 15-year-old Kailey’s supposed plight. Classrooms are so jammed, the vice president lamented, that poor Kailey can’t even sit.
“I want the federal government, consistent with local control and new accountability, to make improvement of our schools the number one priority so Kailey will have a desk and can sit down in a classroom so she can learn.”
Relax. Problem’s solved. Kailey is sitting. She was even before Gore took up her cause. Turns out there was just one day that the Sarasota science class was short a desk. But it sure made a good little story to throw out at the first debate, even if it wasn’t true.
Now, Al Gore may have invented many things, but he’s not the first to play loose with the truth in a political debate. That’s one of the shortcomings of such exercises; viewers have to be skeptical of figures and stories thrown around when there are no fact-checkers to offer instant rebuttal.
Still, debates are instructive for presenting policy differences in broad strokes and in giving a sense of instinct, of judgment. By that measure, this debate was instructive. It showed that Bush and Gore do have fundamental differences in how they view the role and capacity of government.
Bush’s instinct is to trust people; Gore’s is to trust government. Bush missed a great opportunity in not challenging Gore on education. Gore’s solution for Kailey would be more government spending. Bush would give her the means to find a school–public or private–that would meet her needs. At any rate, how could poor Kailey not have a desk after eight years of Clinton administration education policy?
Overall, both candidates displayed a certain level of confidence in their own abilities: Gore in his command of policy detail, Bush in his track record as a chief executive of a large and complex state government.
Both displayed certain vulnerabilities. Bush needs to come up with a better answer for why such a large tax cut is warranted when the nation has a $5 trillion debt. But Gore can fairly be asked why, to qualify for his own complicated, convoluted tax cuts, U.S. citizens would have to live their lives according to Al Gore’s priorities.
Beyond policy, beyond experience, there was one deeply troubling element of this debate. That was the sheer arrogance of Gore, on display in an array of stage-whispered sighs, sneers and sanctimony. And that may be most telling of all. Gore displayed a great capacity for lecturing, and little capacity for listening.
