Looking around College Hall 200, it seems that everyone at the debate between the Penn Democrats and College Republicans knows each other. Most of the budding politicos are dressed as if they just finished a job interview or modeled for a Brooks Brothers catalogue — though none of them did — and the moderator is clad in a long black robe.
Appropriately, the Democrats settle on the left side of the room, Republicans on the right. For the event’s status as the big bi–partisan event of the semester, members of the Penn Dems’ executive board are noticeably absent, but they still managed to bring a small cheering squad. Peter Terpeluk, president of College Republicans, slowly unwraps a burrito and begins to eat it from his middle seat in the tenth row of the lecture hall. Some individual members of the audience turn to their friends and consider leaving, before the debate even begins. Is this demographically–vanilla clique really representative of student political culture?
A few more curious individuals trickle in and the crowd reaches a solid 50, in a lecture hall that normally holds 196. The debaters on both sides of the aisle have spent serious time preparing their remarks. The moderator announces the topic: the best way to fix the economic situation — stimulus spending or tax cuts? — and prematurely compliments the debaters on their substantive discussion. For the most part, they make their arguments succinctly and calmly, with some anecdotes thrown in and without the violent rhetoric seen on a national level. But the vast majority of the exchange is pure spin.
After the debate College senior and member of the College Republicans Seth Bluestein, wearing just a t–shirt and jeans, tells me he was glad both groups got together to hold the event but was “disappointed” by what actually went down. Even though he’s been an active member of the College Republicans since freshman year, he’s critical of how “they stuck to the ‘party line’ and did not offer any compromises or unique positions.” It’s true. Seth says it well, that “The Democrats had nothing but praise for the stimulus bill and the Republicans had nothing but praise for overall tax cuts.” Former Presidents Clinton, Bush and Reagan all came up numerous times, as debaters played the “blame game.”
The debate on how to “fix the economy” seemed to be a regurgitation of exactly what their respective parties have been saying this election cycle — with a little less fear–mongering, fewer “yes we cans” and little–to–no dabbling in witchcraft. Nonetheless, there was a lot of misinformation, like what the actual unemployment rate is — it’s currently at 9.6% nationally, not 11% — or the real fiscal impact of the across–the–board tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2002. And all the participants were trying to give a lesson to the audience on “what actually caused the financial crisis.” The unsurprising answer? The other party. Unfortunately, nobody went up there and said, “Shit happens, but let’s talk about cleaning it up.”
Seth and a good number of other Penn students have taken this attitude toward their work on campaigns around the state. He started working at Tom Corbett’s campaign last spring during the primary. Corbett is now the Republican governor–elect, having just finished a tight race for the soon–to–be vacant, formerly Democratic governor’s mansion. Seth has been a grassroots guy, doing some canvassing and phone–banking, and he heads up the effort to recruit new volunteers for the campaign. For Seth, getting involved in the real political process is just one way to begin a fresh conversation, though he remains quiet at the organized debate one week before Election Day. He points out a problem that was raised by the debate and lies far outside the realm of casting a vote: an unwillingness to consider positions of the other party with an open mind. He sees it in the rhetoric of both parties, as well as a lack of self–criticism and willingness to brainstorm solutions for, rather than blame the root of, the issues.
* * * * * * * * *
Considering the barrage of advertising and media coverage for the 2010 elections, it’s hard to find someone who doesn’t know who is running for what office or at least who Sharron Angle or Christine O’Donnell is, even if only from an SNL sketch. It’s confusing; with the glut of enthusiastic voter–registration volunteers on Locust, Penn seems like one of those places where it would impossible to avoid politics, but beyond a superficial awareness, a deeper understanding of the issues appears missing within the student body.
Both partisan groups allocate some resources into educating voters through events like the debate and a similar one they had last year before health care legislation was passed, but it doesn’t seem to stick. Most efforts are focused on electioneering and getting people to promise to come out to the polls, rather than substantive discussion of the issues. You wouldn’t have found the College Republicans out on Locust this year, though. Penn Dems President Emma Ellman–Golan told me that Terpeluk and the Republicans were guided by national leadership to avoid actively registering voters on this campus, because chances were they were going to vote for Democrats. No one from College Republicans would confirm the order from above, but they have said it was “part of their strategy” on campus. Ellman–Golan also believes that the Republican Party prayed for rain on Election Day, so that city dwellers (typically Democrats) would vote in fewer numbers. As it turned out, Tuesday was bright and sunny and things still went (mostly) the way of the GOP but regardless, it’s not a pretty picture of civic engagement coming from the two major student political groups on campus.
Ellman–Golan defines partisan — she came to meet me wearing a “got health care?” t–shirt and waxes the accomplishments of Democrats in Congress. She cringes when I bring up what Republicans have been saying about health care, the economy and other issues. And her perceptions of Republicans at Penn are mostly “Wharton students who know they’ll be making over $250,000 a year,” and want to protect their tax rates. She writes the Tea Party off as a front for their underlying “racist and homophobic views” tied to evangelical Christianity. Ellman–Golan got some flack for similar comments she made about the Tea Party in The Daily Pennsylvanian, but acting as the voice of Penn’s largest student political group has its advantages. Ellman–Golan recently appeared on MSNBC with other college students and her opening remarks at a rally on campus were broadcast on C–SPAN. She’s not the average Penn student; she calls herself an “anomaly.” She could tell you what an “individual mandate” is or what the public option was in the health care bill. Ellman–Golan belongs to the select cluster of students who prefer to watch Maddow, or O’Reilly, over Madden.
* * * * * * * * *
Regardless of this dichotomy, a good number of students voted in these elections — relative to both the national numbers and other college campuses. Right now is no 2008, when almost 90% of students registered actually voted, but everyone expected a good turnout. As it turns out, numbers were consistent with the last midterm election, 1,460 to 2006’s 1521.
Jared Fries, a senior in the College, co–directs a group called Penn Leads the Vote, a one–of–a–kind non–partisan voter registration effort. They have major monetary support from the University, unlike Penn Dems and College Republicans who receive no funding because of their political affiliation. When PLTV started in ’04, they hoped to be the model that other campuses would subscribe to, but so far haven’t seen their efforts catch on elsewhere. Using a peer–to–peer model, Fries and his volunteers contacted voters directly on Election Day from their “war room” to remind them that they hadn’t voted yet, of their polling place and that the polls were still open. It really was a war room, with about 20 volunteers from various grades and student groups, all clad in matching t–shirts, crowded in a small classroom, fumbling on laptops and running through lists of students, gleaned from exit pole–like surveys, that had yet to vote. At 6:00 p.m., enthusiam in the room was dwindling, as was the supply of pizza and cookies, but they continued to make calls and send texts until the polls officially closed at 8:00 p.m.. The system has it’s flaws though — several students were contacted who already voted and some even reported being told the wrong polling place. Fries displays the same raw enthusiasm as Ellman–Golan and the other politicos but with one key difference — he just wants people to vote. As someone who doesn’t publicly subscribe to either party, he sees more value in sheer involvement. His demeanor was serious and direct, but was visibly excited to tout that in September he helped a self–proclaimed communist register to vote. He may have his own issue positions, but he acknowledges others’ and above all encourages participation. Ellman–Golan, on the other hand, quipped that “Penn Leads The Vote is kind of useless.”
* * * * * * *
Once the rubble clears away from this year’s contest, there will be a bit of a lull in the schedules of Fries, Bluestein, Ellman–Golan and their respective groups. But sooner than you’d think, campaign season will start again. Next are local races for city council, mayor and even the next presidential primary. Both the Penn Dems and College Republicans will, as they usually do, encourage students to volunteer or score internships working on these campaigns, in hopes of getting people to vote — but only for their party’s candidates. Gradually, the lives of our elected officials have become those of constant campaigning, more time spent on the road asking their constituents to vote for them, rather than doing what their constituents are asking of them. If the life of a politician is to perpetually look toward the next election, these mini–politicos are well prepared for the real deal. When it comes to creatively attacking the issues, who can tell? Called strategists and operatives by some, they may just be cogs in the political machine.
