Tonight’s debate is a chance for Republicans to get serious

Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2015 | 2 a.m.

The most important of the four states conducting early caucus and primary elections leading to the White House is Nevada. We reflect such a cross section of America — despite what most outsiders might think of us — that we are a genuine swing state politically, and demographically so balanced that the state is a popular test market for many products.

And so we welcome the Republican candidates for president back to Las Vegas for tonight’s debate. We appreciate another opportunity to discern who has the intelligence, leadership, experience and personality that makes them fit for the White House. Our advice to the candidates? Pay particular attention to issues that are especially important to Nevadans but still relevant to the entire country. That assumes this gaggle of Republicans can thoughtfully and respectfully discuss the issues. Past debates showed their preference for shouting over and interrupting each other while squeezing in their tired, well-rehearsed sound bites.

Among the issues that need to be addressed:

• Yucca Mountain: Nevadans need to know who among the candidates promises to keep out of Nevada highly radioactive used nuclear power plant fuel rods. Nevada does not use nuclear power and shouldn’t be the dumping ground for the industry. Every candidate should know the issue and make his or her position known before the caucuses.

• Immigration reform: All eyes have turned to immigrants from the Middle East. But let’s not lose sight of immigration reform on another front: a road to citizenship for those already living in the United States. Some of these immigrants live in the shadows; others are productive co-workers and neighbors who lack the documents to legalize their residency.

• Health care: If you are against fine-tuning the Affordable Care Act, what else would you institute? Do you at least agree that millions of Americans desperately need and deserve health care? Or do you still want to marginalize them? Where are you on Medicaid and Medicare? If you think health care is an entitlement not deserved by all, admit it so we know where you stand.

• Gun violence: We know you will stand up for the Second Amendment — and so will we. But with rights come responsibility and regulation. How would you as president help reduce the amount of gun violence in this country, or do you not think it’s your job? Would you oppose a government-funded study on that question?

• Public lands: There is pressure to release federally owned lands to the states. Because of the cost of maintaining that land, states may in turn sell them to commercial interests, effectively removing them from the nation’s catalog of accessible open space for public recreation. Your position?

We would consider tonight’s debate a success if every candidate answers even just one of these questions with a decent amount of specificity and without being interrupted by another. That’s asking a lot, we know.

The fact is, what will unfold tonight, as in past performances, won’t be a debate. At best, the distinction among candidates will surface in the course of well-formed responses to policy questions within the time limit — if they are allowed to speak without interruption. At worst, it will be another playground brawl pitting bullies against each other and sometimes hijacking the event by talking way beyond the time limit while the quiet ones get tromped on until they muster the courage and gumption to fight back. This is not how we should be selecting our national leadership.

We hope to observe leadership, statesmanship, empathy and thoughtfulness among all the candidates. We are well past the point where candidates should satisfy themselves with name-calling and spreading fear. All candidates should discard this finger-pointing and undignified chest-pounding. Instead, we expect thorough details about how they will carry out their policies. Details matter.

Each candidate has been guilty of glib characterizations, but we especially hope front-runner Donald Trump will provide specifics that so far he has refused to reveal. His shtick isn’t presidential, it’s bluster and bullying all cemented by vain self-aggrandizement. Twitter might limit thoughts to 140 characters, and Trump — a self-proclaimed “genius” — might actually think in these diminished 140-character blocks. But America’s voters deserve candidates who respect the nation enough to move past demagoguery and on to detailed explanations of how their policies would work. All of those on the stage should step up in this regard. Elevate the debate. If you intend to be president, you should be willing to explain the details and merits of your plans for the nation.

How can we better elicit on-point answers from the candidates, versus tired rhetoric that only grazes the issues? Jacob Thompson, director of the Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum at UNLV, suggests multiple one-on-one debates between individual candidates on a specific topic, similar to collegiate policy debate tournaments. One night, for instance, Trump might be pitted against Jeb Bush on foreign policy, followed by Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio on the same topic. On another night, two pairs of different candidates would focus on a different topic. This format likely would be opposed by stronger candidates who have little to gain and a lot to lose when debating weaker opponents, Thompson says. There is also a question of whether voters would suffer from debate fatigue.

Democracy isn’t easy. Its execution takes work. And it requires its participants, including those running for president, to take it seriously and treat voters with respect. Those who stand on the debate stage tonight need to stop the grandstanding and give straight answers, and the other candidates need to keep their mouths shut until it’s their turn.