Last week there was a debate between the GMU College Democrats and the GMU College Republicans that was held at the food court in the Johnson Center. When you consider that the event was held in the same area that Sen. Obama spoke to literally thousands of people and is a prime campus gathering space, I think it’s safe to say that this was a good setting to reach out to the student population. This was furthered by the fact that the debate took place at lunch time, so many people took the opportunity to grab a bite to eat and watch the debate that was taking place.
The debate featured three students from each group, which was interesting in the fact that it offered something different than the “each candidate for him/herself” type of atmosphere that we’ve been seeing in the presidential debates over the course of the last year and a half or so. Another aspect that proved to provide something different was the fact that students in the audience had the opportunity to ask questions or make comments. Although this created some problems such as difficulties with microphones and some students who rambled on without making a point or asking a question, it also provided some entertaining moments. After one student in the crowd took up a great deal of time trying to bash the panelists as unqualified to talk about economic issues, for instance, one of the Democratic panelists received an enormous amount of applause and laughter after stating that as an Econ major, perhaps he could “take a stab” at addressing the issues.
Throughout the debate, the discussion touched on many of the typical issues that you’d expect to hear about during a political debate – gun control, the War in Iraq, health care, and the role of the United Nations. As the debate went on, however, it became pretty clear that most of the students in the audience didn’t like the fact that the College Republicans would refuse to even remotely admit that the Democrats had some legitimate points. One of the Republican panelists began her first answer by stating “Obviously we take the opposition position,” another panelist would begin almost all his answers by suggesting that what the Democrats had to say was “simply ridiculous,” and all three Republican panelists appeared to later be disgusted by the fact that the Democrats seemed to agree there are some improvements that could potentially be made at the UN. As one person at the debate said, this seems to coincide with the extremely partisan tactics that have been used by the Republican leadership in Washington and on some issues down in Richmond.
Perhaps the most obvious sign of bitter partisanship from the Republican panelists, however, came during the debate on health care. At first, the Republicans took the position that we shouldn’t have universal health care because the only uninsured people in the country were those who simply refused to buy insurance. When the Democrats brought up the fact that many uninsured families were either near or below the poverty line and that affordable universal health care could help the people in this situation, the Republicans began to change their story. The Republican panelist said that the Democrats were still wrong and that the proper solution was to have a way for everyone to be insured that was separate from their employment and could be taken with them when they moved. As people from the audience and one Democratic panelist pointed out, he had essentially made the case for universal health care but was too wrapped up in his partisan agenda to admit that the Democrats had a good idea. Many of the students I talked to after the debate even suggested that this made the Republicans look like they would take any stance necessary to potentially make the Democratic panelists look bad.
Overall I think that the debate should have perhaps focused more on issues that were important to the students in the audience. It would have been very productive, for instance, if more attention was given to rising tuition costs or how the economic downturn might affect students who are about to be entering the workforce. With the debate over other topics has received so much coverage as of late, I think more students would have been interested it was clear to the “average Joe” that the issues being discussed had direct relevance to their lives. That being said, I think the debate was a great way to show that we have organizations on GMU’s campus that are active in the political process and it hopefully attracted a few more students to get involved.
Filed under: George Mason University, Politics, Virginia Politics
