MSU's great debate

Students face off to share candidates' views for 2008 presidential election

The presidential debates may be over, but if last night’s student debate was any indication, students are far from done arguing about the candidates’ platforms.

More than 60 students gathered in the Wonders Hall Kiva last night to hear representatives from three campus political groups defend their presidential candidates.

Debaters from MSU Democrats, MSU College Republicans and Students for Nader represented the views of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, Republican candidate John McCain and Natural Law Party candidate Ralph Nader. Audience members were treated to a mixture of politics, entertainment and a few laughs as the debaters traded viewpoints and the occasional jab at their opponents.

Most of the laughs were garnered by the Students for Nader representatives, who referred to Obama and McCain as “McBama,” saying their policies were too similar to tell apart.

“We’re looking at two wings of the American corporate government voting against the American people,” said Nader debater and international relations senior Shane Dicks.

The debate was moderated by James Madison College assistant professor Ben Kleinerman.

One of the most heated topics of discussion between the student Republicans and Democrats was how to fix America’s failing public schools.

The Republicans advocated more emphasis on reading, writing, math, merit-based pay for teachers and school of choice vouchers.

“They have to cut the fat, get better or get out,” said MSU College Republicans spokesman Louie Glinzak.

Obama supporters disagreed, saying vouchers are ineffective and slashing budgets will lead to more failure.

“All I heard from the McCain campaign is if it doesn’t work, just cut it,” MSU Democrats President Georg Schuttler said. “What are we gonna do? Just fire a bunch of teachers?”

International relations senior Alyssa Roland, who organized the event for the James Madison College Student Senate, said while the debate won’t have a significant effect on voters’ decisions Nov. 4, it helped get students involved in the political process.

“It’s just more easily digested,” she said. “If you don’t understand an issue, you can follow up with a question instead of listening to the debate from the actual presidential candidates (on TV).”

The teams spent the days before the debate preparing answers to a list of possible questions on the usual campaign season topics: the war in Iraq, the economy, the environment and education, among others. Most of their remarks were reiterations of statements the presidential candidates have made on the campaign trail, but there were a few gleams of improvisation.

After Kleinerman posed a question, the debaters were each given three minutes to respond, followed by a minute for rebuttal. During the final half hour, the format changed to a town hall discussion during which audience members posed questions.

Roland said the Student Senate, which has organized several on-campus debates this year, has seen an increase in student interest in politics this election season.

“There’s more of a drive for students to become involved in these campaigns,” she said. “The interest is there, and it’s going to keep growing.”

This was the first time a third party took part in the debates. Roland said she asked representatives from Students for Nader to participate after noticing a lack of exposure.

“We hardly ever hear from the third party,” she said. “It’s kind of depressing, so I wanted to include people representing (Nader’s) view to give the students a chance to hear that.”

And, some students felt, just having their voices heard made the Students for Nader the ultimate winners of the debate.

“I’m not saying that their ideas were any better or worse,” said journalism graduate student Clarence Ball. “But because they had the opportunity to really echo some of the sentiment of the Nader campaign that they simply would not have had a chance to do had there not been this forum.”

Regardless of political views, the debates offered students the chance to participate in democracy on a more interactive level, Kleinerman said.

“In some ways, they get to the issues more than the actual debates,” he said. “They take a little more time and (do) a little more research … it’s not so much gamesmanship.”