There must have been something in the air at recent Republican presidential debates. Both audience members and politicians have posed statements that are questionable at best, and completely immoral at worst.
On Sept. 7, during an NBC/Politico Republican debate in Simi Valley, Ca., the live audience revealed an interesting take on human rights. Moderator Brian Williams of NBC prefaced a question about the death penalty to Texas governor Rick Perry by saying, "Your state has executed 234 death-row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times." Before Williams could continue, the crowd erupted in applause.
It seemed that the audience wasn't cheering the idea that these executions might lower crime rates. They were simply cheering the Texas governor for taking human lives. If Williams had said that Perry had sentenced 234 inmates to life imprisonment, the audience probably would not have cheered quite as loud. In the audience's defense, they might not have known that allegations had surfaced that many of the inmates that Perry had sentenced to death were of very questionable guilt, and perhaps even innocent.
The most recent example of an extreme crowd reaction occurred in the Fox News/Google Republican debate on Sept. 22 in Orlando, Fla., when candidates received questions that were being fielded from the internet. One question came via webcam video from a gay soldier named Stephen Hill who is currently deployed in Iraq. Hill expressed his concern that the candidates on stage might reinstate the recently repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell policy if elected. As the video finished playing, and before former Pa. senator Rick Santorum even had a chance to respond, several crowd members booed the soldier.
This Republican base is supposedly the more pro-military of the two dominant political parties, and yet the audience of this debate publicly disrespected a man who is currently fighting to protect them. What's worse is that not one of the candidates on stage spoke up to defend the soldier.
President Obama addressed this issue at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Council, largest gay rights organization in the country. "You want to be commander in chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it's not politically convenient," he said.
Many of the Republican candidates were interviewed about the issue after the debate, and almost all candidates condemned the reaction of the audience, except for Mitt Romney, who refused to acknowledge that the crowd was booing the soldier because he was gay. Something is wrong when a candidate who wants to be president of this country in about a year won't even condemn an audience who booed an American soldier, regardless of his reasons.
In a Sept. 12 CNN Tea Party debate in Tampa, Fla., the crowd proved itself, once again, to hold human life in low regard. Moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) his opinion on a hypothetical situation involving healthcare. His scenario: A young man, who thought he didn't need health insurance, has a horrible accident and requires several months of hospitalization. His question: Who pays? Paul responded by saying that Americans ought to take responsibility for themselves, because "that's what freedom is all about."
This indication that the government shouldn't take responsibility for the lives of its citizens in terms of health and wellness elicited a great round of applause from the crowd. "But congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer asked. A few members of the audience shouted a resounding "Yeah!"
One of America's most intrinsic beliefs is that a government should look out for the best interest of its people; for example, maintaining a military. Why do these people feel that American lives don't need to be protected from disease as well? And why do they feel comfortable publicly declaring that some people simply deserve to die?
In these debates, the crowds reacted in ways that ought to elicit concern for the social climate in our nation. The politicians' responses to these reactions raise questions about the ability of our potential president's ability to stand up for what is right. In order to have debates that are actually constructive, the crowds and the politicians ought to cut down on the morally unsound remarks.