College Democrats and Republicans face off

Last Thursday the College Democrats and the College Republicans had their election-commemorating debate.

Although the event, entitled “The Gloves Come Off,” took place in a small room in Gilman, it was lively and full of at least fifty people crowded into seats or standing by the table of snacks provided.

The debate consisted of three rounds, each round focusing on one topic: health care bill repeal, tax policy and environmental policy. Two members each of the Democrats and Republicans debated one topic, moderated by Student Government Association (SGA) president Mark Dirzulaitis.

The format of the debate was established before the event. Each side gave a four-minute opening, followed by a two-minute rebuttal to the opening remarks from each side. Then there was an eight-minute crossfire, essentially undirected time for both sides to cover the weaknesses of their respective opponent’s arguments. After the crossfire, each side was given two minutes to prepare conclusive remarks before their three-minute closings.

The first topic covered in the debate was health care. The Democrats opening remarks focused on the immorality of health care as it stands and focused on how the bill will save the country money.

However, the Republicans contested this point in their opening by saying that the bill would cost more than it saves and decrease incentives for doctors. The rebuttal by both sides led more to an argument about whether the bill would actually save the country money — the Democrats’ numbers were provided by the Congressional Budget Office (The CBO) and the Republicans’ numbers were provided by the IHS Global Insight, both nonpartisan organizations that supplied contradictory information about the costs.

The debate highlighted the fact that both parties who use the fiscal aspects of this bill as support to their points may be on shaky ground.

In response to the Republicans’ claims that sixty percent of Americans do not approve of the health care bill, the Democrats said, “They [The Republican Party] say that this bill is unpopular. That is because they have grossly misinformed the American people.”

This remark inspired some people in the audience to clap softly, but also caused many raised eyebrows.

The crossfire was a continuation of the debate over whether the bill would increase or decrease the spending deficit and a discussion over whether the individual mandate was constitutional. After the crossfire, the two sides gave their closing arguments. The Republicans’ speech highlighted the scary dystopia the country would become, according to them, a country like Cuba, if socialized medicine were introduced to America. They emphasized a repeal of the bill while the Democrats closed by saying that the bill would save American lives, and, according to their numbers, money.

The next topic of tax policy was, in particular, a discussion of the Bush tax cuts passed by Congress in 2001 and 2003.

The debate was focused on whether there should be a full extension or full repeal of these cuts.

In this regard, the debate was not actually representative of the respective party lines because the Obama administration does not support full repeal of the tax cuts. However, the Republicans are presently for full extension of the Bush tax cuts. The Republicans and Democrats made their opening remarks stating their positions. The Republicans cited the immediate positive benefits of the tax cuts while Democrats focused on previous administrations that passed tax cuts only to lead to further economic stresses.

The rebuttals and crossfire got particularly heated. At various points, the voices of the Democrats and the Republicans were indistinguishable. However, Stuart Johnson, debater for the College Democrats spoke loudly and clearly.

“Name one economist that said that the tax cuts will pay for themselves,” he said, then proceeded to catalog names of influential people who said quite the opposite.

After listing at least ten names, he said, “I mean…I can keep going.”

He received applause and hoots by various audience members while the Republicans shook their heads.

Thomas Wray, a freshman in the audience was so impressed by Johnson’s performance, he remarked, “I don’t think the Republicans have much of a response.”

The Republicans retorted to Johnson’s claims with statistics provided by the CBO, the “favorite source” of the Democrats, they joked, that contradicted his claims. But Johnson paid them no heed, arguing his point.

In terms of the topic of the debate, both sides strayed from the actual subject of the Bush tax cuts and argued the effectiveness of tax policy in general.

The third topic of the debate was cap and trade policy. At this point, some people had filtered out of the room, but the discussion was as lively as ever. Dan Hochman, president of the College Democrats, who debated on the topic said that while Americans were consuming resources and destroying the environment presently, “[Tomorrow] we’re going to be paying up the ass.”

The cap and trade crossfire ended with a bang with College Republicans’ Merrill Anovick’s proclamation, “I want to improve the environment. You want to improve the environment. You just want to hurt American citizens along the way.”

The College Democrats and College Republicans all shook hands after Dirzulaitis announced the closing to the captivating event.

“It’s very exciting. This is my first live debate and I think it’s very informative,” freshman Tess Thomas said. “All the debaters were very well prepared. They put on their A-game.”

Commenting on the appearance of the debaters, she said,  “I particularly enjoy how the Republicans match their suits and their red ties. Obviously appearance matters if you look at the Kennedy and Nixon televised debates.”

While the College Republicans wore suits and stickers that read “College Republicans,” the Democrats wore a more relaxed assortment of business casual garb.

But, as opposed to the Nixon-Kennedy debacle where presentation was key, wearing a polo did not detract from Johnson’s performance, who received thunderous applause. After the debate, he spoke to The News- Letter about what he felt led to his successful performance.

“You need a strong command of what you’re talking about and the ability to be heard. You also have to structure an argument for people who are not inclined to these topics to understand,” he said.

Michael Reicken, president of The College Republicans, and Dan Hochman, president of the College Democrats, were both very enthusiastic about the debate’s turnout and results. They explained how in 2008 both groups organized a debate before the presidential election, and though the turnout was not very good the last time, they wanted to organize another one before the elections this year.

This time, however, the debate turnout was excellent.

“The debate was in the spirit of raising awareness and it was very successful. We advertised well and this year the Republicans have really organized themselves,” Hochman said. “We might even do another debate next semester.”

Reicken agreed and said that he looked forward to more involvement.

“Up until spring last year, the College Republicans had been inactive as a club,” he said. “I knew there was a 2008 debate, but after finally meeting Dan [Hochman], I wanted more cross club collaboration.”