OPINION & EDITORIAL
Reps, Dems snuggle with each other, status quo
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Kyle Szarzynski:
- Animal torture: Another shameful UW insitution (February 6, 2008)
- Edwards lesser of three evils (January 21, 2008)
- The 'Gravy Train' unfairly railed on (December 11, 2007)
- John Edwards may prove best option (December 4, 2007)
- America, stop kneeling at altar of religious insanity (November 27, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Audience responds to debate (February 13, 2008)
- Candor hallmarks speech (January 31, 2008)
- GOP overlooks minority voters (October 11, 2007)
- College Dems offer year of events, activism (September 6, 2007)
- Visiting speaker divisive, futile (October 25, 2007)
by Kyle Szarzynski
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
The College Republicans and College Democrats debate on Monday at the Memorial Union was predictable enough, with the only dynamism coming from the interchange of personalities between Sara Mikolajczak and Oliver Kiefer, the respective chairs of the organizations. In regard to policy, the only real demarcation came when Mr. Kiefer outflanked his own party, giving the audience a pinching reminder — as if we needed yet another — of the mere inches that separate the ideologies of the two ruling parties.
Yes, this was a debate between establishment opinions. Neither debater dared utter terms like “oppressed” or “disenfranchised” or even “social justice.” The ugly side of America was barely acknowledged. The policy differences were largely confined to the small playground of ideas constructed by the corporate elite — otherwise known as “mainstream opinion” — and, as any idiot could see, this didn’t give them much room to play.
As for the debaters themselves, there was little doubt Mr. Kiefer was the sharper of the two. Ms. Mikolajczak, ever-squirming and ostensibly embarrassed by her own words, successfully proved Republican ideas are, in fact, dumber and more heinous when uttered aloud. Because of this, the evening was, if nothing else, informative.
Most of the policy exchanges offered no such contrast. On Iraq, they differed only on the number of years the U.S. should remain in the country. On immigration, they both opposed amnesty and spoke of the need to strengthen the “security fence” along the Southern border to keep out Hispanic families. On energy policy, neither could offer enough praise for going nuclear, shrugging off environmental concerns without hesitation.
Even when Mr. Kiefer managed to distinguish his platform, he usually did so with disappointing timidity. In his opinion, students should get a bit more financial aid but not too much; abortion should be officially legal but “exceedingly rare”; and the state budget must create jobs; but only by making plenty of concessions to the business community. His search for a middle ground was endless, a gesture his opponent was only too eager to return, time and time again.
To his credit, though, Mr. Kiefer was unwavering in his almost militant call for full equality for gays and a single-payer health care system. His passion was commendable and well-received by the largely liberal audience, making it all the more pathetic that the party he tirelessly works for holds no such positions.
Meanwhile, Ms. Mikolajczak somehow collected herself after each gaffe and continued to promote an agenda few on this campus regularly hear. After reminding us that free trade causes “unemployment, and that’s a bad thing,” she offered no solutions to the problem, only offering an absurd solidarity with the jobless by opining that, perhaps one day, she would be “laid-off too.” But she did have her moments of determination, like when she insisted in a discussion on campaign finance reform, that, “Mitt Romney earned his money and should be allowed to spend it however he wants.” So there.
I couldn’t help but momentarily feel sorry for her, however, when in response to the moderator’s question, she was forced to out herself as an anti-gay bigot, reluctantly admitting she “voted for the ban because of her religious values.” But then I felt glad that, at least in this small part of the country, homophobia must be prefaced with apology and embarrassment.
As the questions continued to be met with prosaic responses, I thought of the issues concerning the half of America unlikely to vote in the November elections. What of the 35 million Americans who can’t even afford enough to eat? What of the ever-increasing disparity between rich and poor? What of the racism that continues to stain every institution in America? What of the abuse undocumented workers suffer from on a daily basis? What of the interminable fall in real wages? What of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead?
In frustration, I penned a question of my own: “Is it appropriate that the two major parties continue to have a monopoly on debate?” — hoping that it would be read during the question-and-answer period? It wasn’t. I was, however, at least able to find some consolation when Ms. Mikolajczak said both she and her opponent mostly “had the same goals for America.” Mr. Kiefer agreed.
In his closing remarks, Mr. Kiefer offered a few gracious remarks to the audience, thanking everyone for showing up, including those “leftists.” He asked, “Are there any leftists in the audience? I was afraid of getting booed.”
It was, at times, more tempting than he knew.
Kyle Szarzynski (kszarzynski@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in Spanish and history.
Anonymous (February 13, 2008 @ 2:44am):
I don't think Mr. Kiefer or Ms. Mikolajczak played it safe at all, and very large contrasts were made. Having the first ever College Dem/Rep debate was bold but enriching. Hats off to both parties for making it successful.
Anonymous (February 13, 2008 @ 9:02am):
Kyle, I disagree with your assumptions about the parties being inches apart. Both parties take polar opposite opinions when they are pressed with specific issues. The problem with our political system is that our media is LAZY and sticks to the worn-out 35-year-old divisive issues.
Kyle, you're playing the problem: Gay Marriage. Who actually gives a damn? Wasn't that put to bed in 2002,04,06? Get over it.
Here's an issue that the media should champion: Nuclear energy. Give our current nuclear plants more capacity and switch a large number of automobiles over to plug-in. Really, screw ethanol.
Media, Badger Herald, quit your tired and lazy "issue" coverage. Find topics that most Americans can support and CHALLENGE our two party system.
Anonymous (February 13, 2008 @ 10:29am):
Don't judge conservative ideals by the debating skills of Sara Mikolajczak. As a Republican, I was just as embarrassed of her performance as she appeared to be. Set up a debate with someone who can accurately express the reasoning behind our values, let alone actually articulate a full sentence.
Anonymous (February 13, 2008 @ 10:59am):
Wonderful article, Kyle, this might be one of your best. Be prepared for the flood of pissed-off liberals and conservatives who will point out the "polar" differences between the parties. Yes, there's differences, but they aren't all that great-- and they're only made polar by the parties' own claims and by the media.
Anonymous (February 13, 2008 @ 12:23pm):
"What of the 35 million Americans who canât even afford enough to eat, of the ever-increasing disparity between rich and poor, racism,abuse undocumented workers, interminable fall in real wages, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead?"
Dude, you sound like the Pope. Kyle, bro, doesn't it make you mad that your social ideals have been promoted by organized religion for a long time?
Anonymous (February 13, 2008 @ 1:31pm):
Honestly, I thought they sounded pretty different. You're craaazy!
Anonymous (February 13, 2008 @ 2:11pm):
Tell me Kyle, how can one make a "militant" call for gay equality?
Anonymous (February 13, 2008 @ 3:22pm):
"Dude, you sound like the Pope. Kyle, bro, doesn't it make you mad that your social ideals have been promoted by organized religion for a long time?"
Well it sounds more like liberation theology. Religion has always preached social justice, but usually the corrupt church leadership ignores it. There's always currents within any religion that will advocate communism or anarchism, and others that are closer to fascism.
Anonymous (February 13, 2008 @ 7:04pm):
"corrupt church leadership"
That's why Kyle wants our "not corrupt" political system to make the world into his socialist utopia. Church leadership is WAY too prone to corruption relative to political leadership, right?
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
