Debate lockout
Nader, Buchanan should be allowed in

The Commission on Presidential Debates is literally silencing democracy.

After finally getting Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore to agree on a debating format, the leaders of the commission announced that it stands by its requirement that third-party candidates must have at least 15 percent in the polls in order to participate in the three presidential debates.

In other words, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader who recently polled at three to four percent and Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan who polled at about one percent will not be able to participate.

“Our program is for those who are competitive candidates for the presidency, not to make people competitive for the presidency,” commission co-chairman Frank Fahrenkopf said.

But according to a recent Zogby poll, 61 percent of the public wants to see Nader in the debates and 59 percent wants to see Buchanan.

This fact, however, holds no merit with the commission.

“We don’t think it has any relevance to what our program is,” Fahrenkopf said.

The problem is, without exposure, third-party candidates cannot rise in the polls, and if they can’t participate in the debates, they can’t get exposure.

The commission is doing a great disservice to the voting public. By virtually silencing third-party candidates in a race where the leading candidates seem more alike than different, it is sending the message that we live in a nation where there is no room for alternative ideas and opposing viewpoints.

Most of all, it is limiting democracy — Americans’ right to think, deliberate and choose for themselves..

Uh oh, kids, the election is upon us ... Unsure, despite his recent resurgence in the polls, and unwilling to rest on the laurels of inventing the Internet, Vice President Al Gore is making a run for the niche votes. Gore made an appearance at Howard University last Friday, trying to score some points with the young and “historically black” audience and hoping it translates into votes in November.

Now I don’t have a problem with Gore going to Howard. In fact, I’m all for it. But I do take issue with the mixed message he delivered last week. Re-inventing himself yet again, this time as a civil rights hero, Gore promised that the “first order of business of the Gore-(Joseph) Lieberman administration” would be to “end racial profiling in America.” Yet, in the same speech, a pseudo-hip Gore said, “When I hear the other side say ‘affirmative action is unnecessary,’ please, give me a break. We need affirmative action for the good of the entire nation.”

I’m surprised Gore didn’t say something like, “and of course you fine, upstanding, super, terrific, wonderful, young black voters wouldn’t tolerate it if you thought I was just telling you what you wanted to hear.” Perhaps he figured such a glaring contradiction would be too sweet a piece of ear candy to really be subject to analysis by his audience. After all, the next president of the United States has been getting away with promises to cut taxes, yet save Social Security, since the primaries.

This time, I think Gore may have gone too far. But let me see if I’ve got this right: When a police officer pulls a car over based solely on the fact that the driver is black, then that’s bad, but when an employer has to hire someone for a job based solely on the fact that the applicant is black, that’s good. Forgive me if I don’t quite get it.

Often misunderstood and broader in its scope than most people realize, affirmative action is not limited to questions of race and labor. The program calls for minorities and women to be given special consideration in employment, education and contracting decisions. Nevertheless, affirmative action amounts to racial profiling, whether anybody wants to accept that ugly truth or not. And it doesn’t matter if racial profiling lands you in the halls of corporate power or the back seat of some redneck cop’s squad car. It’s wrong.
There is a sickening sense of entitlement among the people of this country, and while it might be more firmly entrenched among the white elite, it’s minorities who seem to be doing all the complaining. The fact is that your race should not entitle you to anything at all. Should fat people or people with bad breath get special consideration for positions of privilege? After all, glandular disorders and chronic halitosis can be just as hereditary as skin color.

I do not think that qualified applicants for schools, jobs or contracts should face discrimination based on arbitrary factors such as race, but affirmative action is, in essence, a shrug of the shoulders in the face of our society’s racist plague.

Rather than a Band-Aid of “special consideration,” maybe our civil rights leaders should be pushing for increased education based on actual social equality. Perhaps the separatist approach of embracing a “black culture” and “black pride” in this country, the division of “black history” from “American history” in our school curriculum, and yes, the insistence on affirmative action, are doing more to maintain society’s racist attitudes than to abolish them.

I’m not saying that people should be ashamed of their race, but to take pride in it is just as ridiculous. Last I checked, none of us got to choose our skin color, and no, Michael Jackson doesn’t count. And though the whites in power are certainly responsible for creating segregation, why now do some prominent minority leaders advocate its continuation? I know that I can never understand, because I’m white and I’ve never faced discrimination, and all that nonsense that I hear so often. But what I do understand is that I grew up believing in social equality, and I know plenty of people who did so as well. It’s certainly possible to socialize racism out of “American culture.” It’s just not as “real-world,” as “results-oriented” or as easy as applying temporary, incomplete solutions like affirmative action.

So Mr. Gore, it is time to end racial profiling in America. The only people in this country who need affirmative action are those unwilling to work for real change.

Daniel Bramlette is a senior radio-TV-film major from Ogden, Utah. He can be reached at (dcbramlette@yahoo.com).

Oh, George. He really screwed up this time. I mean, every other thing he’s done to make himself look like an idiot was foul smelling and ludicrous but still managed somehow to rest cozily on the border of endearing. When he couldn’t name the leaders of four geo-political hot spots, it was stupid but cute. When he told a bunch of school kids to preserve instead of persevere, it was foolish but lovable. When he made fun of a woman Texas put to death in the electric chair, it was vicious, disgusting and amoral ... well, I can’t think of a redeeming quality for that one.

Details aside, Bush has managed to scrape through this campaign season by playing off his weaknesses as the byproduct of good ol’ American grit and straightforwardness. Clever, George. Very clever.

But now I find myself in a quandary. Now that Bush has done something thoroughly and inexcusably embarrassing, should I shrug my shoulders and think to myself, “It had to happen sooner or later?” Or, should it shock me that the master tightrope walker has finally fallen to his chagrin, pushed off-balance by the issue of presidential debates?

Honestly, I am shocked. It’s a lot like when the Republicans forgot to fund the 2000 Census. Now, it’s in the Constitution that we have to have a census every 10 years; and yet, come 1999, the Republican House leadership could be found running around like lemmings, screaming at each other about there not being enough money to do the count. They knew it was coming. Similarly, Bush, and more importantly his campaign staff, knew the debates were on their way. And they also knew for a long time they didn’t want to deal with them. Not only is Bush light on the substance that debates demand, but Al Gore’s middle name is, “When I’m at a Podium, I Will Eat You for Breakfast.”

But you know, it’s not like you can be the leader of the Free World without some kind of test — some event by which you prove you’ve got the stuff to go one-on-one with people such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin, China’s Jiang Zemin and TV’s Oprah. Bush’s idea of a debate was some kind of prime-time forum moderated by none other than Larry King. Yes, Larry King, the CNN talk show host who made a fine art out of asking people, “What’s it gotta be like to wake up in the morning, look in the mirror and see somebody famous looking back?”

But the thought of a real intellectual confrontation was no daydream for Bush. He complained the format should be more relaxed and the location of one of the planned debates was too close to the Kennedy Presidential Library. Apparently, he was afraid the Democratic boogie man lived there. Come on, Gov. If the thought of debating Al Gore gave you the willies, then why do you think you’re ready for the toughest job in the world?

Thank goodness “Dubya” was finally shamed into some real debates. It would be a pity if he were able to get away with making a sham out of democracy and deliberation. More importantly, imagine the message he would have sent if he hadn’t debated.

“Excuse me, professor. I really think the format of this test should be easier. Instead of asking me to defend my position, can’t I just tell you how great it is to be an American? Oh, and I’d also like to move to another classroom. This one is too intimidating.”

Duncan Teater is a columnist for the Indiana Daily Student at Indiana University. This column was distributed by U-WIRE..