No more what-ifs: Candidates to debate real foreign crisis

Tonight's town-hall style debate in St. Louis has an urgency and importance that neither of the previous debates have had.

The candidates' different philosophies about how to spend the projected budget surplus will probably still take center stage. But as it becomes increasingly clear that foreign affairs will dominate at least the beginning of the next presidential term, the extent of the United States' involvement will be determined largely by whom we elect in November. If you have one thought in mind while you watch the debate tonight, let it be this: Which candidate do you want to see getting on a helicopter to Camp David with Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Barak?

Experience shows that the issues raised in debates are a poor reflection of what the elected candidate actually will have to face, but the Middle East crisis will prove an exception to this rule. Al Gore needs to demonstrate more effectively than he did in the second debate the foreign policy experience he has gained during his 24 years in Washington. He is a leading arms-control expert and former member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He should attack George W. Bush on foreign policy.

Bush, on the other hand, needs to explain what he specifically means when he asserts that we must defend America's credibility or strategic interests abroad. A few months ago, Yasser Arafat stormed out of a televised CNN interview with Christiane Amanpour after telling her that she did not understand the history or details of Middle East policy. Now imagine that the person who lacks the knowledge of the relevant facts is the president of the United States. Despite The New York Times criticism that Gore tends to boast, his knowledge of the facts is important.

Of course, sincerity and likability are also important. So are the candidates' skills at answering comfortably the questions of fellow citizens. But these subjective judgments about temperament are less important than the substance of the candidates' statements. They may help a candidate get elected, but they will not help an elected president exercise the full authority of his office. Bush's answers to foreign policy questions always seem to drift toward strong-arming Saddam Hussein or building an anti-ballistic missile system. His attempts to make an issue of supposed American military deficiencies are as deceitful — though not as effective — as John Kennedy's warnings against a fabricated missile gap with the Soviets were in 1960. And tonight, we can expect Bush to try to use the bombing of the U.S. Navy destroyer Cole as a confirmation of those claims.

In the first debate, Gore turned off even loyal supporters. And tonight — as he did in the second debate — he will probably continue to dodge questions about his tax plan and offer vague answers to just about everything else. But in tonight's debate, more than in either of the first two, there is no need to discuss hypothetical crises or "What-would-you-do-ifs?" An American destroyer appears to have been bombed, and one of the most strategically significant areas of the world is being torn apart by savage violence on both sides.

The wild card factor in tonight's town hall format is that nobody — not the debate commission, not the candidates, nor even the moderator, Jim Lehrer — has control over the questions that are asked. The citizens chosen to ask questions could frame the discussion entirely around foreign policy. But as participants, they will have the opportunity to reveal the plan and character of each candidate in a time of real crisis. And we as viewers have our best and last chance to compare those plans and those men side-by-side.

The events of the last week are a painful reminder that we must not allow the peace and prosperity of the last eight years to lull us into a sense of complacency about what is at stake in this election. Adam Frankel is from New York City. He can be reached at afrankel@princeton.edu.