Their name recognition is low, and their chances of winning are slim, and these circumstances constrain their ability to raise money. A public, televised debate offers them a rare chance to state their case and inform the public without having to spend a lot of money.

The problem here is an inability to see the big picture, or to put it less charitably, a willingness to put personal political advantage above the public interest. Incumbents avoid the free and open exchange of views that informs voters and bolsters our democracy for one selfish reason — they believe they will win anyway.

In the attorney general’s race, neither candidate is an incumbent, but Democrat Letitia James, the favorite, is still talking about ducking a debate with Republican Keith Wofford. Many voters — especially upstate voters — have never heard of either candidate, so you would think a debate would be imperative. But the cold political calculus for James is that, because New York has more registered Democrats, she will win a battle of unknowns.

Democracy depends upon an informed electorate, and to have that, political candidates must campaign with a measure of good faith. They must sometimes agree to take part in events, such as public debates, that serve the public good, even if those events won’t necessarily help their campaigns.

In sport, athletes and teams want to play the best, because they want to prove they are the best. In politics, to the great misfortune of the citizens and the country, all notions of fair play have been sacrificed to the god of victory. Winning has become the only thing, and that makes losers of us all.

Local editorials represent the opinion of the Post-Star editorial board, which consists of Publisher Rob Forcey, Editor Ken Tingley, Projects Editor Will Doolittle, Controller/Operations Director Brian Corcoran and citizen representatives Carol Merchant, Eric Mondschein and Barbara Sealy.

Love 2 Funny 0 Wow 0 Sad 0 Angry 0