Monday night?s debate between the College Republicans and the College Democrats was a mismatch.
At one podium, College Republicans Chair Sara Mikolajczak struggled, time and time again showing feebly reasoned adherence to Republican orthodoxy. As Groucho Marx might well say, ?She?s got principles, but if they don?t support the latest thinking of the Republican rank and file, well, she has others.?
At the other podium was College Democrats Chair Oliver Kiefer, who appeared to have been born for the express purpose of political debate. In a real tour de force, Mr. Kiefer wedded eloquent oration with expansive political knowledge and stole the show.
So, it would be so easy to conclude that this event was simply a tale of two debaters, and that in a bizarre parallel universe where Mr. Kiefer is a Republican and Ms. Mikolajczak a Democrat, the outcome would naturally be the opposite. But some of us prefer to live a life of analogies, and to me, this debate was a rather perfect one for the state of our two major political parties.
Ms. Mikolajczak?s presentation not only embodied a Republican Party in the midst of a serious identity crisis; she was effectively fighting with two hands tied behind her back in trying to defend it. Mr. Kiefer, in turn, was an able interlocutor of an articulate and cohesive platform, and the personification of a Democratic Party that, buoyed by two juggernaut presidential candidates, has really got its groove back. The party?s strength was his strength.
As Ms. Mikolajczak claimed at the debate, her party is a ?big tent,? but in attempting to accommodate the contradictory viewpoints of its constituent groups, it is bursting at its thinly wrought, pragmatic seams. Put another way ? the big tent has a circus underneath. The Republican Party?s unholy alliance of hyper-rational, self-interested capitalists and jingoists; cultish evangelicals championing a bizarre form of ?morality?; xenophobes of all classes and colors; not to mention plenty of decent folks temporarily led astray, was not built to endure.
This coalition was put together in piecemeal fashion to win elections, and for that purpose it has been a relative success. But because the groups that comprise their party each have very different demands, Republican candidates have to be skilled political contortionists and panderers ? and even then there?s no consensus.
Just look at the near-impossibility of fielding a Republican presidential candidate acceptable to a large majority of its members. It isn?t even a party, really; it?s a group of disconnected voting blocs.
Considering this, think of the challenge Ms. Mikolajczak faced in trying to walk and recite some semblance of a party line. At every question, she had to consider, ?Should I justify this answer with economic theory, the text of the Bible, or, if all else fails, some personal responsibility-inspired ?I don?t give a damn?? What kind of Republican should I be on this issue??
You could almost see this process unfolding in her mind throughout the night. And while she successfully juggled at times, it got ugly when she dropped the ball.
It was donning the wrong political hat that caused her to say that she?d only care about unemployment when she herself lost her job; she went with ?personal responsibility? when she should?ve gone with economics. And she simply couldn?t pick between state?s rights, evangelical or governmental nihilist Republicanism as she twisted and turned on gay marriage. I sincerely commend her for trying ? I?d feel schizophrenic myself after a night as the voice of the GOP on campus.
On the other hand, Mr. Kiefer didn?t have to struggle with cognitive dissonance. Today?s Democratic Party starts with a few main premises: that government can be a powerful and effective vehicle for social change; that the well-being of our neighbors, whether they?re individuals or nations, is important to us; that we have a responsibility to think not only of our generation but of ones to come; and operates deductively from there, rather than inductively from disparate interest groups.
Because the Democratic Party no longer puts forward religious doctrine as policy rationale, it doesn?t have to awkwardly shift between magic and logic. Because Democratic policies seek to healthily unite morality and humanity with rationality and self-interest, these considerations aren?t manifested in isolated extremes like conservative Christian moralism and selfish economic policy. I would never say that all things Democratic are superior to all things Republican, but at this point in time, the donkey just makes a lot more sense.
Monday night Mr. Kiefer smoothly transitioned from trade policy to teachers? salaries, from Iraq to international labor standards, all the while finessing his presentation with a minor encyclopedia?s volume of statistics, compelling moral appeals and the tone and cadence of a precocious politician.
I didn?t agree with everything he said, but certainly most of it. And above all, I appreciated how he addressed us with reason ? a universal brand of morality ? and hope for, not fear about, the future.
Which, come to think of it, is exactly what I like about the Democratic Party.
John Sprangers ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and international studies.
