Wednesday, September 23, 2015 | Opinion | THE TUFTS DAILY
tuftsdaily.com
Opinion
9
Opinion
OFF THE HILL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
GOP debate focuses on insults, not policy by Tiana Lowe As predicted, the second Republican National Debate for the 2016 presidency was ultimately a clash of personalities between 11 divisive dispositions rather than a battle of ideologies and policy positions. The general ambiance of the race, which currently consists of 15 widely recognized Republican candidates, was overwhelmingly summarized by candidate Carly Fiorina’s early assertion: “I think Mr. Trump is a wonderful entertainer.” The Republican race has been dominated by the (in)famous business mogul Donald Trump’s lead. After the 2012 election, the Republican National Committee seemed slated to support a candidate who could cross the partisan line drawn by over a decade of stringent division. Perhaps a candidate with millennial experience and understanding of the modern conflict between dreams and the failing economy. Flash forward from the 2012 presidential election, and the Republican party is stuck with a reality TV star. The first 20 minutes of the debate was not impacted with talks of governmental control over the internet through later generations of the Patriot Act, imploding student debt or the impending explosion of the Social Security bubble. Instead, the debate consisted of personal threats. Acknowledging Trump’s previous insults, in which he questioned Carly Fiorina’s abilities, exclaiming, “Look at that face,” Fiorina responded: “I think that women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said.” Her cool, calm response to the front runner’s sexist insult exemplified a winning combination of Republican grace and liberal feminism,
but it still could not curb the overwhelming power of “The Donald.” Ultimately, this debate was nothing more than an act of entertainment. CNN’s approach to the second debate, riding on the enthusiastic wave of first debate on Fox News, was to take random campaign statements from the contenders and ask for other candidates’ responses to their contemporaries. Clocking in at almost three hours and impacted with personalities vying to be as loud and demanding as Donald Trump’s, the second debate came across as a weak and substance-poor version of the first. Ben Carson, who has catapulted to second place, superseding previously second- and third-place candidates Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, maintained a calm, inoffensive demeanor, exactly what could be expected of a man who would make an exemplary surgeon general and a completely unqualified commander-in-chief. Carson had some nice sound bites, some of which will be lauded as points of American exceptionalism, and others which will be condemned by liberals as privileged and idealistic. Regardless, the words heard by the American public were the tabloid-esque insults pointed to and from Donald Trump. Laced with mudslinging toward Trump, last Wednesday’s GOP debate consisted of character assassinations and non-sequiturs. Despite being hosted in the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, few debaters maintained the dignity and respect of the site’s namesake. Although all the candidates tried to invoke his legacy (his name was mentioned 20 times Wednesday night), they refused to acknowledge that Reagan would have failed as president if he did not maintain his vision for his
future instead of dwelling on the errors of the past, as well as focusing on issues that enraged liberal voters as well as conservative ones. In the aftermath of the 2012 election, centrists and moderate liberals seemed receptive to Republican and libertarian notions of smaller government, more room for individual autonomy, business opportunities and a decrease in police militants. In 2015, that has been replaced by fever for defunding Planned Parenthood — an organization which only uses federal funds to finance non-abortive services — and building a wall to keep out illegal immigrants. Contemporary young people who believe in the market economy and American sovereignty wanted a substantive and comprehensive debate to map out a curious and variable future. And considering that Republicans already are underrepresented among millennials, further debates should greater appeal to this demographic. “People at home want to know how we’re going to fix this place,” said Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Yes, everyone wants to know. Young Americans want to know which GOP candidate will provide a solution to the higher education crisis in this country, which GOP candidate will acknowledge climate change and police brutality as threats to American sovereignty as strong as those of the Social Security bubble and Chinese ownership of American debt and which candidate on that stage will finally see that this is a nation made not of liberals and conservatives, but of all Americans who wish to achieve the American Dream. Unfortunately, this debate did not reveal much of importance, but the tabloids will have more than their fair share of headlines.
Kevin Lawson The Tufts Daily Show
The Good, the Bad and the Dummies
H
ere’s a shocker: not every voter is particularly pensive about the quality of their presidential pick. In the words of Stephen Colbert (may his “Report” R.I.P.), these voters make decisions on the next leader of the free world not with their brains, but with their guts. It’s that command center that daylights as a poop-production facility. They use their guts to determine the candidate with which they could most easily share a beer — or, in Tufts elections, 1.75 liters of vodka from a plastic container. Romney lost in 2012 because he wasn’t the man to share a pint with. Aside from beer being against his religion (Mormon) and not his drink of choice (appletini), most people were pretty sure a drop of any alcohol would short-circuit his wiring. Malcolm Gladwell’s “Blink” (2005) testifies to the occasional power of “thinking without thinking.” That strategy is supposed to be saved for a pinch, though. Presidential announcements began 18 months before Super Tuesday. Not exactly making us chew it over with a Twix. Here’s a handy way of remembering when to utilize snap judgments: Just let out an audible fart at your Tinder date’s apartment and need to choose whether to make it a joke? Snap judge it up! Have approximately two years to decide who is most fit to run the country? Try thinking with thinking! Every major candidate seems to be missing something crucial. It’s sort of like The Wizard of Oz. Hillary goes to the wizard and says, “I need a heart…and some humor because of a pledge my aides made.” “OK, I’ll give them to your SuperPAC.” Jeb goes to the wizard and says, “I need a brain, Mr. Wizard.” Trump goes to the wizard and demands, “Gimme whatever you got. I’ll slap my name on it and sell it for a tremendous profit.” Every time Trump puts his foot in his mouth he realizes he loves the taste of his own feet, and everyone applauds him for it. 24% of Republicans now see him as their best shot at winning the Gold House (let’s not pretend he wouldn’t paint the White House gold). Here are some hypothetical Trump debate answers that could make the debate a cinch for him: A: “I’d like to buy a vowel, and that vowel is ‘I’, because I am positively the change America needs right now (Republicans/fans of Wheel of Fortune go wild). A: I can assure you that a vote for Trump would be VERY lit (frats go wild). A: *Coherent string of words intentionally related to politics* (analysts’ expectations are smashed, columns go wild). There is a problem with our political decision-making. The message at any campaign event is hatred for contemporary D.C., despite a 90 percent congressional reelection rate. On one hand, ideological differences are positive things. On the other hand, our political entrenchment isn’t due to ideological differences alone. Many a Congressman would forego many a humanitarian effort were it politically unwise. Five percent of Congressmen are without a college diploma, and that’s fine – better a Scarecrow than a Tinman in the Oval Office. Recognizing this now may be the difference between a White House and a White Hotel. Kevin Lawson is a junior majoring in political science. He can be reached at Kevin. Lawson@tufts.edu.
OP-ED POLICY The Op-Ed section of The Tufts Daily, an open forum for campus editorial commentary, is printed Monday through Thursday. The Daily welcomes submissions from all members of the Tufts community; the opinions expressed in the Op-Ed section do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Daily itself. Opinion articles on campus, national and international issues should be 600 to 1,200 words in length. Op-Ed cartoons are also welcomed for the Campus Canvas feature. All material is subject to editorial discretion and is not guaranteed to appear in the Daily. All material should be submitted to oped@tuftsdaily.com no later than noon on the day prior to the desired day of publication; authors must submit their telephone numbers and day-of availability for editing questions. Submissions may not be published elsewhere prior to their appearance in the Daily, including but not limited to other on- and off-campus newspapers, magazines, blogs and online news websites, as well as Facebook. Republishing of the same piece in a different source is permissible as long as the Daily is credited with originally running the article.