by A. C. Fuller
With that, she turns and walks toward the dressing rooms.
Red carpet covers the debate stage, and seven podiums have been arranged in a gentle arc. A blue stage curtain forms the backdrop along with seven American flags hanging such that one will be visible on camera behind every candidate.
Journalists from all over the country are here, along with camera crews from the major news networks. We couldn't get any of them to carry the debate live, probably due to immense pressure from Democrats and Republicans not to, but we suspect they'll discuss the debate at length on their various talking head shows.
The fact that the networks have been resistant to cover our events live has actually turned out well for us. The American people want to see our debates, and most know how to use the internet. And since all our events air live on the Ameritocracy homepage, as well as our Facebook and Twitter feeds, the media blackout forces viewers to our site. While they're on the site, they can register, read about our candidates, sign up for our mailing list, hang out in our forums and chat rooms, and so on. In the last few months, the Ameritocracy website has become more than a place to vote for your favorite candidate. It's become the place to get your news.
I sit in the front row next to Steph as John Lee, our moderator, takes the stage.
"Welcome students, faculty, and guests, to the Ameritocracy debate." Lee is a thirty-year veteran of the San Francisco Chronicle and now co-host of California Today, an NPR show about the economy and politics of America's largest state. We make eye contact briefly, then he continues. "The organizers of this event, as well as the seven candidates backstage, have agreed to the following rules." Lee pauses for effect. "I will ask questions and each candidate has two minutes to answer. All candidates will have a chance to answer first, and last. There will be no opening statements, but there will be closing statements. I will permit no interruptions, but if a candidate is mentioned by name, I will allow him or her a brief response. I will moderate any back and forth that happens at that point and will step in to press for real answers. Applause is allowed, but please silence all cell phones."
He places his hands on the podium in a gesture that says, I'll wait, as audience members reach into purses and pockets for their phones.
"Okay," he resumes, "let's meet the candidates. The candidate ranked number seven served under three different United States presidents before becoming a Professor of Law at George Washington University. He's the author of the definitive history of the legal aspects of the Civil War, Divided Against Itself. Please welcome Avery Axum."
Meager, respectful applause rises from the audience as Axum emerges from behind the blue curtain, taking his place at the podium on the far right of the stage. He's around sixty-five, sporting silver hair and a pleasant, grandfatherly smile that always puts me at ease.
"The candidate ranked sixth is the mayor of Denver, Colorado, formerly a Unitarian pastor and community organizer. Please welcome Justine Hall."
Hall walks confidently to the podium on the far left of the stage. She's changed out of her jeans and is stunning in a slim-cut gray skirt and jacket over a white blouse. The ponytail is gone and her black hair is down around her shoulders.
"The fifth-ranked candidate is a Navy veteran who served in Afghanistan before being honorably discharged and beginning a ten-year career with the CIA. She now serves as the only independent in the US Congress, and the first Latina congresswoman elected by the state of Ohio. Please welcome Maria Ortiz Morales."
Morales, who limps slightly due to her prosthetic leg, takes her place next to Axum.
"Our next candidate, at number four, is the creator of the popular YouTube channel Pacific Northwest Home and the mother of six children. From western Washington, please welcome Beverly Johnson."
Loud applause fills the room as Johnson takes the stage next to Hall. Her red hair is a few shades lighter than mine and, of everyone in our top seven, she's the biggest surprise.
She's done an excellent job staking out a position as our most relatable candidate. She can talk policy when needed, but she rarely does, choosing instead to focus on sharing her story, her recipes, and the specifics of her advocacy for children in Washington State. As other candidates have tried to widen their appeal by talking about national issues, she's won voters by keeping it local.
"He's the host of Shout the Truth, a syndicated radio show that reaches over three million listeners daily, and author of the bestselling book, America Now!, please welcome our third-ranked candidate, Tanner Futch."
Red-faced and smiling broadly, Futch plods across the stage to mild applause and a smattering of boos. His hair is slicked back and he wears a black suit that's nicer than his usual getup. When he reaches his spot next to Morales and one to the right of center, he places his fists heavily on the podium, causing his mic to pop.
"At number two, he's the CEO of Colton Industries, a leader in the fields of cloud computing, solar technology, and data systems analysis. Please welcome Peter Colton."
Steph pats me on the knee, as if to console me, as Peter glides across the stage and takes his place. It's surreal, seeing him next to the candidates I've come to know.
His presence on stage doesn't feel right, and it has nothing to do with his politics.
I read a study once that proved that Americans don't vote based on issues as much as we'd like to think. Instead, we tend to identify as part of a "tribe," and we vote with our tribe. The tribes, the study argued, are based on social issues, race, economic status, and sometimes simple proximity. Not on important national issues.
In this moment, I believe the argument completely. The other candidates on stage have been major parts of my life over the last year. Even the ones I disagree with are part of my tribe. And Peter, who I agree with on most things, isn't.
"And your top-ranked candidate," Lee concludes, "is a Baptist minister from Abilene, Texas, and a well-known advocate for the poor and disenfranchised. Please welcome Marlon Dixon."
Loud cheers and a few shrill whistles erupt from the audience as Dixon appears from the left side of the stage. Unlike the other candidates, he stops and shakes the moderator's hand before taking his place behind the podium in the center of the stage. Dixon was disappointed when Steph and I turned down his request to wear a GoPro camera at the debate, but nevertheless he beams down at us, then takes in the audience. He was born for moments like this.
Lee casts a sweeping, satisfied look across the stage. "Welcome to all the candidates."
He waits for the applause to die down, then proceeds, his voice lower and slower. "Tonight we'll continue the questioning that was underway at the previous Ameritocracy debate, which was tragically cut short. Before we begin I'd like to engage us all in a moment of reflection and respect."
He bows his head in silence. The audience follows along obediently. Looking up after a long minute, Lee says, "In honor of those we lost, let us continue our important work and carry on bravely as we celebrate democracy in action through this debate. Mr. Dixon, this first question, submitted by Tanner Futch, is for you."
4
"Mr. Futch's question reads as follows," Lee begins. "'The earnings of American workers have become unhinged from productivity. As American productivity has continued to rise, wages and wealth of all but the top one percent have remained stagnant. Why did this happen and how can we fix it?' Mr. Dixon you have two minutes."
"Thank you, Mr. Lee. And thank you to those who made it to Sacramento today. And welcome to all those who are watching around the world. This may be the most important issue in this debate—in this competition—because, as Ameritocracy comes to a close and we begin to turn our minds to a general election struggle against the Democrats and Republicans, we must switch our focus to economic issues. So I thank Mr. Futch for the question, though I believe he and I will disagree strongly when it comes to answers."
He pauses thoughtfully, then gestures toward the other candidates with a game-show sweep of his arm. "In fact, I think we can al
l agree that economic injustice cuts to the heart of the issues we face. As a better preacher than me once said, 'If a man does not have a job or an income at that moment, you deprive him of life. You deprive him of liberty. You deprive him of the pursuit of happiness.'"
He lets that sit for a moment before footnoting it. "It was Martin Luther King, Jr. who said that. He believed deeply in justice, and he said that as part of his Poor People's Campaign, on behalf of every American starving at our national feast. A few weeks later, he was shot to death. His work has been left undone.
"Men like Tanner Futch believe that wealth, and the security that comes with it, is a zero-sum game. That if others are gaining, he must be losing. That if white men like him aren't doing quite as well as they did forty years ago, it must be because someone else is taking his share. That's false.
"James, chapter two, tells us, 'Suppose there are brothers or sisters who need clothes and don't have enough to eat. What good is there in your saying to them, "God bless you! Keep warm and eat well!"—if you don't give them the necessities of life?'"
As usual, Dixon's undulating voice and sheer charisma have the audience transfixed, but I wonder about his strategy. Because he's in the lead, Dixon has taken heat lately. Specifically, he's been criticized from both the left and the right for failing to be specific about economic policies.
Now, again, he's falling back on Bible quotes. It's worked well for him in the past. He's also linked himself to Martin Luther King Jr., which isn't a bad idea. Whether it works tonight will depend partially on how the other candidates answer the question. If they lay out detailed policy thoughts, he could end up looking idealistic. Or worse...out of touch and unelectable. Electability has become a hot topic of discussion on the Ameritocracy message boards lately as some voters switch their mindset to the general election.
"In a world this bountiful, in a nation this rich and brilliant, nobody needs to go hungry. Nobody needs to be afraid they'll end up on the street in a week. The poverty that people suffer under is the result of choices that have been made to keep them in that poverty. As president," he concludes, "I will make different choices."
It's a good message, and I'm sure he's rehearsed it. But his delivery is flatter than usual, and I wonder why. He usually closes on a line that brings the crowd to its feet, and this one doesn't.
Lee nods at Peter. "Mr. Colton."
Peter has a smirk on his face. Like me, he knows Dixon's performance wasn't his strongest.
"Thank you, Mr. Lee, and thank you for coming, ladies and gentlemen. This is my first Ameritocracy debate, and it's an honor to be here. In fact, this is only my third public appearance since joining the race. Why is that? It's because I want people to judge me based on what I do, not what I say. Ameritocracy has given me a wonderful platform on which to connect with voters via position papers, articles, and videos. I encourage you to go to the official page to learn more about me." He pauses. "So, what have I been doing with my time? Instead of hosting dozens of self-indulgent public appearances, I've been running one of America's biggest companies: Colton Industries. I've been growing the economy, creating jobs. But enough about me. Government needs to be asking the What About You Questions. Do you feel uncertain about the future, do you feel like you're being left behind by the new economy?"
One of the things that attracted me to Peter from the beginning was his confidence. He speaks quickly, efficiently, but with just enough music to keep your attention. His black hair used to be shoulder-length, but his PR people probably told him that no matter how good-looking he is, America won't elect a man with long hair. Now he's got a standard politician cut, almost as though they're trying to make him look less attractive.
"I'm a member of the one percent so often demonized by men like Tanner Futch and Marlon Dixon," Peter says solemnly. "And it's true that the wealth gap in this country is unconscionable. America does better when we all do better. But, at the same time, we need to reward hard work. We need to reward those who create jobs. Those who innovate. We can't stifle American business with undue taxes and regulatory burdens. But the wealth gap must be closed. Under my administration, it will be."
Peter just did the thing most politicians do, and it's no surprise. He touched on multiple positions without locking himself into a specific policy. While acknowledging the idea that the wealthy have too much clout, a position usually associated with the left, he also articulated a belief usually held by the political right—that companies and wealthy individuals should be left alone to create jobs and wealth.
Of all the candidates on stage, Peter is undoubtedly the most tech-savvy. And my hunch is that the real reason he hasn't done many public appearances is that he doesn't want to offend anyone. He doesn't want to risk having a good interviewer pin him down on an unpopular position. His wealth and celebrity were enough to rocket him up our leaderboard. His candidacy spread like wildfire online. Why mess that up with challenging interviews and debates? It's a strategy frontrunners have used in American politics for decades.
As Lee moves to Tanner Futch, something clicks for me. Peter is counting on our self-constructed social media echo chambers to shield him from the consequences of talking out of both sides of his mouth.
People love Peter. They want to see the best in him. They want to believe in him because it feels good to believe in him.
Folks on the left will take his statement about bridging the wealth gap and run with it. Folks on the right will focus on his statement about allowing businesses free rein. And their Twitter feeds and friends-lists and algorithmically-predicted Other Articles You Might Like will allow them to hear only what they want to hear. We've all eagerly bought into systems that give us what we want, and Peter is simply taking advantage of that. All he needs to do is provide the sound bites, and let our own bad habits do the rest.
America does better when we all do better. Reward those who create jobs. The wealth gap must be closed.
A little something for everyone.
In his answer, Tanner Futch hits all the notes I expect. He blames the wealth gap on a combination of globalists aiming to destroy America and immigrants wanting to steal its resources. He condemns both political parties as "feckless, un-American sellouts." He argues for an end to NAFTA and all other trade agreements and a return to protectionist economic policy.
I have to admit he's an effective spokesman for his ideas, profoundly bad ideas though they may be.
Beverly Johnson's answer focuses on the need to balance the budget, so as not to leave our children with debt. She also supports dramatic increases in public school funding and Head Start, which she plans to pay for by cutting back on welfare, foreign aid, and military spending.
She manages to get in a plug for her YouTube Channel, Pacific Northwest Home, when she compares a balanced budget to a perfectly risen Dutch Baby, the famous souffle pancake for which she's known. I tried making the recipe several times at Steph's apartment before concluding I'd probably have more luck balancing the federal budget.
Maria Ortiz Morales begins her answer by pointing out that hazard pay in the military is only $150 per month. With former general Robert Mast no longer in the race, her military experience has kept her in the top five, and she's pivoted toward the center on many issues to fill the space left by Mast's implosion.
Morales now argues for a set of policies that closely resemble those of the center of the Democratic party, and she does so with enough specifics to come across as the most-prepared candidate yet to answer.
The core of her plan is funding healthcare and subsidizing college tuition at state and community colleges by closing what she calls the "capital gains loophole." It might be a good idea, but I think she overestimates how many voters could tell you what capital gains are.
She also rolls out an aggressive job training program for the Midwest states that suffered as America's industrial base eroded, concluding with the line, "Under a Morales administration, the tech boom will come to Ohio, and Michigan, and
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin!"
In many contexts, this would have been a rousing applause line. The California crowd is unimpressed.
At our last debate, Justine Hall walked off stage mid-answer to tend to an emergency in Denver. The moment cemented America's image of her as a practical woman who cares more about running her city than scoring political points. By walking off the stage in the middle of the debate, she'd won.
Her problem over the last few months has been that her focus on Denver isn't an act. While candidates like Dixon, Colton, and Morales put out endless streams of online content, Hall puts out a trickle. While they craft their public image, Hall lets hers be crafted around her.
Now, she presses down the creases in her skirt and answers carefully. As the number six candidate, she likely knows this is her last chance to make a big leap before the final debate.
"I read a poll recently that said forty percent of Americans think the super-wealthy are the most powerful group in America. Only twenty-five percent said it was the government." She pauses, making eye contact with me, then other members of the audience. "Think about that. Millions of Americans believe the wealthy are more powerful than the government.
"Here's another statistic, and listen carefully because it may be the only thing Tanner Futch is right about: the world's richest one percent are on course to control as much as two-thirds of the world's wealth by 2030. Imagine one hundred people in a room, splitting a hundred dollars. One guy walks out with sixty-seven bucks while the other ninety-nine squabble over the leftovers."
She doesn't gesture toward Peter when she says one guy, but her body language shifts in his direction a bit. "It's not fair. But even more important, it's not practical."
She draws out the last word and gives the audience a knowing look. As busy as she is, she's savvy enough to know the public image of her that's been filling headlines.
"Yes," she continues. "I've seen the polls. My chief of staff even told me I should run with it, that I should use the word 'practical' to reinforce the fact that, as an independent, I'm already seen by some as above partisan politics."