 "Photo:")
Students looking for insight into the upcoming presidential election attended a panel discussion in Higgins last Monday night. The event, hosted by the Boston College Republicans and co-sponsored by the Political Science Association (PSA) and Allies, featured four panelists - Jeff Jacoby, a columnist for the Boston Globe; Chris Barron, national director of the Log Cabin Republicans; political commentator Avi Nelson, and Democratic Sen. Steven Tolman, who is serving a term in the Massachusetts Legislature.
BC Republicans president Max Buccini, A&S '06, Allies leader Guilford Forbes, A&S '05, and PSA president Chris Meehan, A&S '05 served as moderators.
The first question pertained to the situation in North Korea and how it should be dealt with.
"North Korea is a really tricky situation," said Jacoby. "We must do what the circumstances require, though. The policy of the Bush administration is exactly right on this subject. The best way to deal with Kim Jong Il is by employing regional allies. This, of course, is a complicated situation because the guy running the country is insane."
Tolman has serious reservations with this approach. "What we're doing isn't working," he said. "We shouldn't be afraid to work with them directly, in a bilateral framework, as we did under the Clinton administration."
Nelson warned that such a framework would be a bad idea.
"Kerry made a mistake in the debate by endorsing this policy," said Nelson. "He proposed that he would institute bilateral negotiations. This is a terrible policy. We need to get our allies in the area involved as much as possible."
Barron saw the disagreement between the two candidates on this issue as more political than anything else. "The election process inevitably draws people into wanting to draw distinctions between themselves on every issue," he said. "Kerry knows that the bilateral approach has not worked, but he doesn't want it to look like he's agreeing with Bush.
Another question asked was whether Kerry is a flip-flopper.
"Everybody knows he flip-flops," said Jacoby. "It's a major issue because it's a question of political courage. Kerry will not stick his neck out for a political position."
Jacoby related a story about Kerry's actions during the first Gulf War. A supporter of President George H.W. Bush sent a letter to Kerry's office asking what the senator's position on the war in Iraq was. Kerry responded that he unequivocally endorsed the policy Bush was pursuing in Iraq. Several days later, an antiwar constituent wrote to Kerry's office, and in reply he wrote that he had opposed the war from the start. Both letters were obtained by The Boston Globe, at which point Kerry's office was forced to issue a third letter, this time to clarify.
To Jacoby, this was a perfect illustration of Kerry's character. "If you can't take a stand on the most burning question of the day," he said, "then you're unfit to be commander-in-chief."
Nelson and Barron saw Kerry's shifts on Iraq as a case of political expedience. Tolman, however, said that the image of Kerry as a flip-flopper was engineered by the GOP.
"The Republicans waged a very successful campaign to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper," said Tolman. "In the debates, though, people recognized a statesman who will lead the country in a new direction."
One of the most heated exchanges of the night came when Allies leader Gil Forbes asked "why we need an amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage."
"We don't need an amendment," said Barron quickly. "Even without one the law is clear - states will not be forced to honor marriages granted by other states if they conflict with the laws of their state. Don't attack authorizing gay marriage as judicial activism, either. Judicial activism really just means a court making a decision that you disagree with."
"Well, I think that a small group of unelected judges authorizing a practice that has never existed in thousands of years of human society is a pretty clear case of judicial activism," said Jacoby, interjecting.
"The call for an amendment, unlike the court decision, is a way to decide this issue democratically. It almost definitely will not pass. But by debating the merits of gay marriage, we can get it all out in the open."
Nelson said that although he vehemently disagreed with gay marriage, as a libertarian, he will not oppose it.
"This is the sleeper issue of the campaign, because it touches something deep inside," said Nelson, as a visibly upset Barron looked on. "I personally find the sight of two men acting intimately in public revolting, but I will not amend the constitution to prevent same-sex marriage. How ever much I may disagree with the practice, and I deeply disagree with it, I don't feel that we should amend the consitution. "
Be the first to comment on this article!