By Michael Walker
In an evening that mostly highlighted the differences between the
platforms of the nation’s two biggest political parties, both sides
could agree on at least one thing: The most important thing for the
country to focus on is what comes next.
“We’re here tonight to
speak about the future of our two parties. For the Republican party,
that future is John McCain,” said sophomore Chelsea Kane, chairwoman of
IU College Republicans. She spoke at an Indiana Public Interest
Research Group-sponsored debate between her group and the IU College
Democrats held Tuesday in the Henry Radford Hope School of Fine Arts.
Along
with Kane, sophomores Danny Orthwein and Pat Buschman represented the
College Republicans. IU College Democrats President Anna Strand
represented her party, along with freshman and Administrative Vice
President Daniel Herman and junior Clint Ward.
The debate,
moderated by Associate Vice Provost of Academic Affairs and Student
Retention Ray Smith, consisted of questions submitted from various
student groups, including the IU Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance,
Human Rights Campaign and Students Working Against War. Topics covered
included health care reform, the Iraq War, taxes and gay marriage,
among others.
Both sides pointed out that they were not simply
interested in offering empty rhetoric, but wanted to advance specific
proposals to remedy problems facing the country.
“We don’t simply believe in the buzzword of change,” Strand said. “We are actually trying to purvey it.”
The debate began with a two-and-a-half minute statement from each side outlining the basic principles of its party.
In
his opening remarks, Herman touched on the issue of climate change. He
said it was time to put aside the argument of whether or not climate
change was real and to focus on practical solutions to the problem. He
mentioned the work of California-based NanoSolar, which has developed
ultra-thin solar panels that can be placed on most any surface, as the
type of project the government should be supporting.
“These types of things need to start now,” Herman said. “The sooner we start, the better of we will all be.”
After
the opening statements, nine separate questions were posed to each
team. Both sides were given an initial five-minute response time, with
an additional one-minute rebuttal after the other team responded. Any
time left after the team’s original response was added onto the time
allowed for its rebuttal.
A question was posed on the issue of
college costs, a topic both sides noted was of critical importance to
IU students, themselves included. In her response, Strand highlighted a
recent bill passed by the Democratic Congress that would aim to lower
the cost of college tuition and would cap the period of time
individuals would have to pay back loans.
In her rebuttal,
Kane stated that while she agreed the government should offer
assistance in helping students attend college, students should also
take personal responsibility in seeking out ways to pay their tuition.
“There
are lots of grants and scholarships out there,” Kane said. “People
should be taking advantage of these as much as possible.”
On
health care, another issue of great importance to students living on
fixed incomes, the Republicans said the responsibility for providing
health insurance should not fall on the government.
“Individuals know best how to manage their assets,” Orthwein said.
Kane
mentioned proposals of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to open the
pharmaceutical market to foreign companies as one way health care costs
could be lowered and health insurance could be made available to more
Americans.
On the Democratic side, while conceding that both
Obama’s and Clinton’s health care plans differ somewhat, they all
agreed on one idea: Health care is a right all American citizens should
be afforded.
“Never should anyone have to choose between paying their rent and paying for their prescriptions,” Ward said.
The
debate ended with a closing statement of two and a half minutes from
each group. Both sides agreed it was important for students to inform
themselves about each side.
“We have a voice, and I think we should use it,” Buschman said.
