Listen for what you won’t hear at debate

Ah, presidential debates. Those special times when we learn there was no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, that Sen. Dan Quayle was no Jack Kennedy, that Ronald Reagan refused to take advantage of the youth and inexperience of Walter Mondale, and that George H.W. Bush was, well, kind of bored.

More than 50 million people are expected to watch tonight’s show, which is about one-sixth of the entire population of the United States. The debate between President Barack Obama – who prepped right here in Southern Nevada – and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has the potential to affect the race, and thus we’ll watch, like NASCAR fans hoping for a big, fiery, debris-flying crash.

Don’t get your hopes up. Both Romney and Obama are Harvard-trained lawyers; Obama was even president of the Harvard Law Review. Both have debated at the national level before against very skilled opponents. And both have undoubtedly prepared sound bites, attack lines and even zingers for all occasions.

It may look spontaneous, but it’s almost entirely scripted. And neither man will stray too far from his playbook.

That’s too bad. They could say some things that America needs to hear, some unpleasant truths that need to be told. But with an election about a month away, truth is bundled up in a non-descript motel under guard like a federally protected witness.

For example, on deficits and the debt: The deficit reduction plans put forward by both men simply don’t add up. According to The Associated Press, Obama’s $4.4 trillion deficit reduction plan will end up cutting only $1.1 trillion, and Romney’s plan – details are still sketchy – could end up requiring cuts in federal spending that Congress would almost certainly reject.

Will one of the candidates look the American people in the eye and tell them that the solution to the problem will involve sacrifice? That the federal government must make major changes – including changes to venerable social programs such as Medicare and Social Security – in order to stop the flow of red ink? That it’s vitally necessary to make serious spending cuts, cuts that will affect nearly all Americans, but that to avoid doing so is to court disaster? That we may have to pay more in taxes to pay for the government upon which we ally rely?

And will Romney finally unveil the details of how he plans to balance his budget?

This debate is about domestic policy, and one important issue is our war on drugs. Will either Obama or Romney have the courage to admit that war has failed? That it’s diverted much-needed resources away from other priorities? That it’s put people in jail and saddled them with criminal records without justification? Will either candidate acknowledge that – at the very least – marijuana should not be considered a dangerous drug on par with LSD or fentanyl or synthetic heroin?

Will either candidate acknowledge our invasion and occupation of Iraq was an unnecessary and costly error? Will they pledge to never again use our military in such a grotesquely unjustified way, and then only upon a duly passed declaration of war by the Congress?

Will either Romney or Obama address – in more than passing terms – the gap between rich and poor in the country, and what that increasing social inequality means for American life going forward? Obama may make reference to Romney’s “47 percent” remarks – uttered at a $50,000-per-plate fundraiser, but let’s not forget that Obama is no stranger to those rarefied environs himself.

No, we probably won’t hear much about any of that tonight. Too bad, because that would make it a memorable debate.

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