Nation gets its chance to debate U.S. policy

In Massachusetts, high school students will square off against senior citizens. In Denver, former U.S. senators will exchange verbal jabs. All over the country, people are sharpening their rhetorical skills as they prepare to join in an ambitious plan to get Americans talking about the nation’s role in the world.

An unlikely collection of liberal and conservative groups are working together on The People Speak, which aims to spur a nationwide, town-by-town debate on foreign policy and the United Nations. The groups have helped organize more than 1,000 debates in 49 states starting Monday and playing out over the next several weeks.

The world is changing rapidly, organizers say, and people need to talk without sound bites or slogans.

“We’ve got everyone from the right wing to the left wing. Everyone is agreeing it’s time to discuss and debate these issues,” said Tim Averill, a Massachusetts high school teacher whose students are taking part. “One thing that’s clear, as I was telling my class this morning, is that America has embarked on a significant shift in its foreign policy.”

Elsewhere, there will be noon debates at the skywalk in downtown Des Moines, Iowa, on Oct. 30; ex-governors and an arms control analyst arguing in New Mexico on Oct. 6; and a living room showdown in San Juan Capistrano, Calif., by month’s end.

The biggest gatherings will bring top think-tank theorists, former ambassadors, politicians and activists to 14 larger cities.

“This is the kind of debate that’s really long overdue,” said Tom Donnelly, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “Having a debate amongst Americans about what kind of world we want to make is really quite timely.”

The past two years have brought sweeping developments: the Sept. 11 attacks and the war on terrorism; the Bush administration’s announcement that pre-emptive attacks may be necessary; the arguments at the United Nations over Iraq; nuclear worries in Iran and North Korea.

Participants come from across the political spectrum, from neo-conservatives such as Donnelly, whose support for aggressively pursuing American goals and democratic ideals overseas has been heard in the Bush administration, to liberals such as the Open Society Institute, to good-government types such as the League of Women Voters.

“People are starving for this kind of thing,” said Kay Maxwell, the league’s president. “What’s been missing is dialogue. … We tune into the cable news shows where everyone is shouting at everyone else. No one does much listening anymore.”

Each debate brings together a conservative and a liberal and a moderator to help keep things moving.

Each debate is supposed to consider two issues: “The Use of Force” and “Global Challenges and International Cooperation.”

From there, debate groups can pick from four possible statements up for debate. One example: “Resolved, that the United States should use military force preemptively to meet the threats posed by hostile nations and groups seeking to acquire nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.”

Organizers are hoping for substance rather than shouting.

“We will try to add light rather than heat to the debate, but inevitably there’s bound to be some passion on display,” said Donnelly.

The idea grew from a casual discussion among leaders of several foundations, said Tim Wirth, a former Democratic U.S. senator from Colorado and now president of the United Nations Foundation, a group that funds U.N. projects.

Everyone has a point of view, and they should, Wirth said. But the nation as a whole hasn’t had a chance to debate those views, even as the Bush administration moved ahead, he said.