CNBC defends its performance at the last Republican debate by saying that candidates should be able to answer tough questions. Indeed they should. So, using the format of the CNBC questions to Republicans, here are some tough questions to ask Democrats at the next debate:
“Senator Sanders, you have said over and over that big money runs our politics. In the Republican party, the big money went to Jeb Bush, and he has gone nowhere, so Republican primary voters don’t seem to follow big money. In your party, you have competed very effectively with Secretary Clinton, even though you rely on small donations and the big money is with her. So isn’t your big money line just a false narrative designed to justify an otherwise content-free campaign?”
“Secretary Clinton, it has now been established that just after the attack on the American compound in Benghazi, you were telling the American people one thing—that the cause was a spontaneous riot motivated by a video—and your own daughter and the prime minister of Egypt another, that you knew it was a terrorist attack. How do you justify lying to the American people and the families of the victims of the Benghazi attack?”
“Senator Sanders, you heard Secretary Clinton’s answers. She is leading in the polls. Do you think she is morally fit to be president of the United States and lead this country?”
“Secretary Clinton, three of the five largest political donors in the last few cycles were labor unions that forcibly collected money from their members and contributed it to candidates without their members’ knowledge or consent. Do you think that is fair?”
“Senator Sanders, same question: Why do you think it acceptable for union bosses to give tens of millions of dollars of their members’ money to candidates, some of it to you, while you complain about big-money influence?”
“Secretary Clinton, so far in this campaign you have failed to come up with a comprehensive plan for restructuring the American economy, a detailed budget proposal to prevent the country’s debt from ballooning, or a detailed tax reform proposal. Why is that? Do your numbers just not add up?”
“Senator Sanders, even President Obama’s former budget director wrote a paper saying that big increases in the top tax rate coupled with giving that money to the bottom fifth of the population will do little to make the income distribution more equal. Why do you keep insisting the exact opposite on the campaign trail? Have you actually looked at the facts?”
The list could go on for a long time; the Democratic candidates provide a target-rich environment for what CNBC considers “tough questions.” Of course, these questions will never be asked of Democrats—and, frankly, they shouldn’t be; they are snarky and rude. But with the names changed, they are the equivalent of the questions asked of the Republicans, and not just by CNBC. The contrast between the questions asked of Republicans and of Democrats was equally sharp when the questions came from CNN. Everyone knows the media treat Democrats differently from Republicans on everything from administration scandals to ethical lapses. The CNBC disaster was noteworthy only because it was over-the-top and so many people were watching.
Equally bad, the debate was a missed opportunity. Aside from John Harwood, who covers politics, the moderators are business and finance journalists who normally talk all day about the economy and markets. This was a chance to see if the candidates actually understood economics. Why not ask, “Ever since 2000 the economy has slowed dramatically, from roughly 4 percent growth to just 2 percent growth. Why do you think that is?” Or, “Inequality has risen under both Democratic and Republican presidents. Why do you think that is? Have both parties failed the middle class?” Or just a simple, “Do you think the Federal Reserve is doing a good job?” Those are actually tough questions; they demand thoughtful responses and could be asked at both parties’ debates without changing a word.
These are the types of questions I actually expected. I’ve been on CNBC plenty of times and have always found Becky Quick and Carl Quintanilla proper and straightforward, as are the topics they raise when delving into policy. Sure, Quick and Quintanilla lean Democratic, but they have always been professional in my experience. And the panel’s token conservative, Rick Santelli, has always been eloquent on these same topics.
Harwood is another matter. He was President Obama’s favorite interviewer, receiving several exclusive interviews on CNBC, including one where the president famously swatted a fly that had landed on his arm. Obama knew that Harwood was part of his Greek chorus. My guess is that the Washington-based Harwood convinced Quick and Quintanilla that this was how it was supposed to be done, and they followed his lead.
It is not surprising that neither CNBC nor Harwood has given the slightest indication of feeling that they did anything wrong. CNBC’s ultimate overlord, Brian Roberts, is a partisan Democrat. He and Harwood think this is how Republicans should be treated because they are simply wrong—they just don’t fit the mainstream media narrative about America and are a threat to that vision of what is right.
To them, the audience for the debate was not Republican primary voters, who, in the minds of the elite, are ignorant and bigoted and exemplify all that is wrong with America and therefore deserve to be ignored. The purpose of the debate was to damage the Republican brand in advance of the general election. This contempt for the actual viewers of the debate is what has stoked real anger among ordinary people, because they have now personally felt what the media really think of them.
My advice for Becky and Carl, who I sincerely believe are decent people, is to reflect on the purpose of the candidate-selection process in our democracy, then to approach their role in it in a constructive spirit. Solid performance is what creates the credibility on which their profession and American politics depends.
Lawrence B. Lindsey is president of the Lindsey Group and the author, most recently, of What a President Should Know . . . but Most Learn Too Late.
