POLITICALLY SPEAKING COLUMN: Discussion informative, disappointing
By Chuck Mathews
The presidential roundtable discussion on Oct. 11 in the cultural center turned out to be both informative and disappointing. The moderator, Nate Bloomquist, had the difficult task of both deciding ahead of time what questions should be addressed and also the burden of having to make spontaneous decisions.
However, I think that there were many important issues that went untouched. The other problem was that it was an informative presentation rather than an interactive discussion. I was pleasantly surprised to find that, although the panel was comprised completely of educators (traditionally more liberal), there was representation of both ideologies.
Some of the issues discussed were: the environment, budget surpluses, tax cuts, social programs, abortion, image of the presidential office, and social security. I believe these are all pertinent issues for us all, not enough time was spent on showing how these things relate to college students; most of the time was spent showing how the issues affect those who were speaking.
Some things said were informative. Mike Phillips talked about the oil ‘crisis’ and how both of the parties were acting irresponsibly. However, he failed to mention that this should be a non-issue, as higher prices will drive the market to spawn new alternatives.
Joe Mikyska and Dr. Harriet Custer focused on the budget. Mikyska mentioned the differences between the two major parties saying that one wanted to cut everyone’s tax burden while the other wants a “targeted tax cut.” I think that he overlooked the idea that the “targeted tax cut” was entitlement, also known as a socialist program.
Sue Opsal’s main issue in the campaign was abortion. She believes in the woman’s “fundamental right to choose.” After the roundtable she said she couldn’t take this “right” away from other women even though she wouldn’t do it herself. She said that approximately half of all American women will have an abortion and many others will have had considered it.
She believes life begins at conception. This surprised me, as she was condoning abortion. She said her beliefs were the soul does not exist, however, until the baby is born.
The most interesting of the panelists was Samuel Rogal. He said the most important issue in this election was that of character; we should restore the office to its noble beginnings. He said exaggerations by Gore were one example of how the office could be tainted further.
Overall it was a very insightful discussion, but it lacked the audience participation that would have made it great.
Although I disagreed with much of what he said, Phillips made what I consider the most important statement of the discussion. He said that Social Security was designed to help the poorest of the poor, not a retirement fund. It will never be a way to retire. Planning for retirement will become even more important when Social Security is repaired and reset to where it was started.