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 ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in Spanish and history.
