If Tufts' students continue to view policy debate through thick political lenses, they risk joining the ranks of the lifelong political partisans that have divided this country. Through the EPIIC program, Fletcher School, and most impressively through the Fares Lecture, Tufts students have a very unique opportunity to hear and question policy makers from around the world.
As a frequent participant in these programs, I am always impressed with the level to which the speakers stay on topic and refrain from political rhetoric; however, I often find myself disappointed when the floor is opened to student questions that attempt to reframe the debate through American partisan politics. The most notable instance occurred at the Hillary Clinton lecture on Wednesday.
As an American after a bitter election, I was very relieved to hear one of the minority leaders strongly affirming the tenets of President Bush's policy towards the Middle East. But promotion of pluralistic democracy as the long term solution to terrorism, support for Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state alongside an independent viable Palestinian state, and support for Turkey's accession into the E.U. drew little reaction from the crowd. It was only when criticisms were mounted that the crowd reacted with cheers and applause.
Then the floor was open for politically loaded and off-topic questions. It was at this point when, against the eloquent advice of Senator Clinton herself, the crowd showed a complete lack of respect for persons with differing views as it turned a policy lecture by a major U.S. political figure into a political rally.
Partisan politics leads to poor policy debate, as we just witnessed in the Presidential election. Many in the crowd groaned as they attributed the low level of debate mentioned by Senator Clinton to the Republican Party, but politicians are a reflection of the electorate. So as long as the electorate refuses to elevate the discussion beyond rhetoric, the political debate will not change in this country.
This closed-minded approach does strange things to otherwise rational and intelligent people, as seen in the narrow portrayal of the Bush voter (and more specifically, the Evangelical voter) by the editorial pages of northeastern papers including The Tufts Daily. This image of the ignorant religious man voting for Bush because God told him that Bush was against gay marriage, and who succumb to the "jihad on America run by W." as stated by Maureen Dowd of the New York Times may provide some people here with comfort, but it is absolutely false.
I am from the Midwest, and while I am not an Evangelical, I know plenty of people who are and none fit this stereotype. I cannot express strongly enough how deeply offensive this stereotype is, especially when I have someone's uncle from Scotland invoking this image of why I voted for Bush in Thursday's Tufts Daily.
Our generation has been charged with a promising but extremely complex challenge. The irreversible move towards a global society will be shaped by us. This is not a time for depression or pessimism. It is not a time for concern about winning and losing. It requires vision and complex thought. Tufts has created an environment for all of us to move the world forward. We need to take advantage of it.
Bradley J. Kramer is a junior majoring in Mechanical Engineering.
