And now, the Democrats!

You’re going to hear about Republican obstructionism, about Republican love for the wealthy and disdain for everybody else, about the dismantling of the social safety net and returning to the policies and problems of yesterday.

Some of it will even be true.

But let’s talk about a few of the things you probably won’t hear at the Democratic National Convention.

For example, you probably won’t hear speakers dwell at length on the subject of America’s growing debt and deficits. (For the uninitiated, the deficit is what we spend in excess of what we take in each year; the debt is what we owe, and what we pay interest on, when those deficits pile up. Currently, our national debt is nearly $16 trillion, or almost $51,000 per citizen.)

To be sure, the debt is not the fault of any one party, or any one president. But fixing the blame isn’t the issue here; fixing the problem is. Republicans may have been long on rhetoric during their convention in Tampa last week, but one thing they got right is this: We must address this problem. We can’t continue to simply spend more than we take in.

Unfortunately, the solution isn’t as easy as some would like us to think. It involves a complex series of interconnected issues, from social program spending to defense. Radical cuts may sound nice in a speech, but they create economic havoc in the real world for millions of people.

But to ignore it, as so many have, is irresponsible. It’s not the type of problem we fix on the campaign trail, since it requires telling some hard truths to people who don’t want to hear them.

But that’s called leadership: forming a consensus to address the most vexing problems we have.

You’re probably not going to hear much about the constitutional rule of law next week, either. President Obama’s action to de-prioritize the deportation of students who would be eligible for citizenship under the oft-delayed DREAM Act remains very popular with Democratic constituencies. So does his appointment of Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or his decision to stop defending the anti-gay marriage Defense of Marriage Act.

But each of these decisions carries constitutional questions. The president swears an oath to the Constitution, to see that the laws are faithfully executed. But in the immigration and DOMA cases, President Obama has declined to enforce the laws. In the case of Cordray, he made a recess appointment during a time when the Senate was not, technically, in recess.

Don’t get me wrong; I support the DREAM Act, deplore DOMA and am appalled at the Republicans who conceded Cordray was a qualified nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau but refused to confirm him. But Republican intransigence and disingenuousness do not grant the president license to ignore the rules. (Democrats who are not upset by these events should ask themselves how sanguine they’d have been if George W. Bush had done something similar.) There’s a right way to change laws you don’t like, although it does require hard work to overcome opposition.

You will hear about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, but you’ll hear a lot less about the armed drone attacks, some of which have resulted in the deaths of civilians. In fact, the entire concept of remotely piloted vehicles deserves more scrutiny than it has received, especially since President Obama is using those devices to target enemies more than the previous administration. The wisdom and morality of that program should be discussed at least.

Republicans went on about American exceptionalism quite a bit. It might be nice if somebody stood up to say that doesn’t mean everybody in the world has to follow the rules, except us.

 

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at (702) 387-5276 or ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.