The Tufts Lectures Series-sponsored debate on Wednesday night between Ann Coulter and Peter Beinart aimed to bring the two wings of the political spectrum into the same arena and have them duke it out. Unfortunately, that's about all that happened. If you went to the "debate" to listen to each side spout tired campaign talking points, rehash old and pointless rhetoric or just yell at each other, then you had a good time. However, for those who went hoping that these influential voices from opposite ends of the spectrum could somehow acknowledge their opposition's legitimacies or engage in an intelligent, open discussion for once, you probably felt like vomiting afterwards.
Ann Coulter, pundit extraordinaire and columnist for Human Events, faced off against Peter Beinart, editor of The New Republic. From his opening statement, Beinart weakly tried to argue that there was a cause and effect relationship between the presence of Republican voters in Red States and their lack of social welfare programs. His premise was that because these states "go red," they are doomed to a future of poverty and high infant mortality rates. He did not point to actual specific policies that hurt residents in Alabama (a state he brought up multiple times), but rather argued that the mere presence of a Republican majority hurt poor Southerners.
For a balanced listener to buy this argument, Beinart had to prove 1) that poverty was a direct result of a Bush policy; 2) that these states were not last in the rankings under a Democratic President, who he implied would magically fix every social problem by throwing money at it; and 3) that these states are not worse off because of other factors, such as poor state economies, poor state-level management, history of state government mismanagement, or government regulation that favors companies in other states. He could have tried to back up these statements with more than the "studies" he quoted, but preferred instead to end each of his statements with an outrageous claim or attack on Coulter or President Bush's Administration that inevitably drew applause.
Coulter, whose reputation as the right wing's Ice Princess preceded her, relied on a similar assumption that the audience would hang on to every word she said. Essentially, she argued that liberals can afford to preach social welfare and government hand-outs because they live in luxury in Malibu and Westchester. While everyone is aware that sometimes this is true, to hear a well-known pundit use it as a basis for all liberal policies was ludicrous. Just as ridiculous was the cable news channel style of "debate" they employed, which, as we are sadly all familiar with, became a shouting match over which party got more poor voters.
Such banter, usually used to fill hours at CNN or FOX News, has no place in a legitimate political discussion. Effectively, Coulter and Beinart turned the "debate" into a verbal boxing match, at which point those who were looking for an intelligent discussion gave up and tried to find some humor in the situation.
One thing the combatants did not address was the essential fact that America is mostly middle class and whether that group is liberal or conservative. The protection of the middle class is most essential to the success of the society and the capitalist system and should be the moral basis of both political parties. Most audience members probably forgot at some point during the shouting that the debate's topic was supposed to be "The State of Moral Values in America," not a screaming match about Joe McCarthy and the Marshall Plan.
The "debate" was entertaining, and both sides are certainly well-versed in political humor, but political humor is not political intelligence. The audience went to hear - we hope - a little more than talking points. Beinart started to sound like one of those "revolutionaries" you hear in the New York City subway; Coulter came off as that nasty girl who made you cry during high school debate class. Did these people get paid for this? Did our tuition bring these "experts" here? Is Tufts giving refunds?
While Lecture Series feebly but nobly attempted to limit the debate to a discussion on "morals," the event inevitably turned into a rehashing of Campaign 2004. And we all know how well we all got along during those fall months. It's nice to envision that the state of political discourse at this university and in this country might be more even-handed and productive than this event shows, but every day such a view gets harder and harder to maintain.
Whether you're conservative or liberal - or in Coulter-Beinart terms, fascist or communist - please bring more to the table when you have a political discussion. Be willing to admit your own errors and at least pretend to listen to your opponent. The 2004 Election is over. Republicans won, Democrats lost. Now we can start over with some intelligent conversation about American politics and the true direction of domestic and foreign policy instead of arguments and ad hoc attacks between talking heads. Our generation is one of the most politically active in years. If we can respect each other long enough to have a discussion that doesn't resemble "When Animals Attack," we might be able to get something done.
Michael Devine is a sophomore who has not yet declared a major and Rebecca Frank is a freshman who has not yet declared a major.
