Wilson Times Editorial on Local Debate

Wilson Times Editorial: Debate plan step in right direction

Local Tea Party members deserve credit for trying to pull off something Wilson County very much needs: a public debate where voters can watch the two candidates for sheriff under fire and objectively judge their capabilities and demeanor. That group has worked hard to make it happen, and the latest proposal for that event is far better than an earlier one that would have charged a $20 per person admission fee.

Yet that plan, too, has an obstacle that's hard to get around. The new proposal would split tickets between the two candidates to distribute and would put a box seeking donations at the door. The problem is, all those who get in, presumably, will already support one candidate or another. That's more like a football game than a public debate. Can't we do better?

Wilson needs a more community-minded approach to sponsoring a debate in a close and controversial race for a high-profile office. The first Tea Party plan set the teeth of many Wilson voters gnashing, and with good reason. The public should not have to pay admission to listen to people seeking their support debate the issues. That proposal also put off one sheriff's candidate, Democrat Calvin Woodard, so badly he declined to participate.

Let's be honest. There's a tad of one-upmanship going on here. The Tea Party is a political movement with a defined point of view -- mostly conservative, and opposed to many of the initiatives and much of the spending coming from the current Democratic administration in Washington. And, of course, it was the Democratic sheriff's candidate who has raised objections. Unaffiliated candidate John Farmer has said he's OK with both of the options.

Any group has the right to organize a political debate in whatever manner they choose. If they want to charge admission to cover costs, nothing says they can't. If they want to let candidates admit only their supporters, nothing prevents that either. Candidates have the right, too, to decline debates if they are uncomfortable with the ground rules.The question is, where does this leave Wilson's voters?

Debates where admission is constricted aren't public debates. They are private debates. Like a movie or a concert or a ride at an amusement park, only certain people can get in. The civic benefit of such an event is limited.

We'll say it again: Wilson is in need of a more community-minded framework for a debate between the two capable candidates who want to be the county's next chief law enforcement officer.

* Article appeared in Wilson Times editorial section