By Christopher Lindsay
On Feb. 9, the BYU Democrats and Republicans will square off in their semi-annual, campus-wide debate - the Annihilation Bowl.
Not to sound trite, but welcome to the doghouse, political discourse.
One of my roommates, a native of Cleveland, Ohio, steadfastly maintains his political neutrality, no matter how much I try to goad him. He insists that both sides have some good ideas, and, anyway, he only watches for entertainment.
It''s usually somewhere near this point that I''ll walk out of the room. How can someone still be neutral? Contemporary political wisdom suggests the country is irrevocably divided against itself - red in the middle with blue icing. Can anyone still claim to be purple?
In light of the upcoming debate, though, maybe he has the right idea.
This particular brand of left vs. right, red vs. blue, us vs. them divisiveness isn''t really going to help matters. I can''t help but recall Jon Stewart''s impassioned plea to Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala, the then-hosts (whom Stewart called 'partisan hacks') of the left-right CNN debate show 'Crossfire.'
'Stop...' he said, 'stop... hurting America.'
When he said that, you could almost hear the collective faith in political debate sliding up a few notches. Debate shows do not lend themselves easily to patient, understanding discussion; the demand for shouting each other down - yes, Hannity and Colmes, I''m talking to you - is, as my roommate put it, 'much more entertaining.'
That isn''t to say there is no advantage to a reasoned (and reasonable) discussion. Many of the issues put forth in the Annihilation Bowl certainly merit analysis: the Alito nomination, exit strategy in Iraq, the executive right to tap phone lines of American citizens and so forth. But I''m skeptical that anyone is going to leave the room feeling differently than they did when they walked in.
Debate is a time-honored tradition in this country, and let''s approach it that way. Cable news commentator Bill O''Reilly recently challenged his viewers to a debate, which he''s calling the opportunity to 'Bloviate With Bill'-in a Fox News sponsored contest where six people will be flown to the studio to be (in all likelihood) dressed down by the O''Reilly Factor''s boorish host.
For the record, Fox values that right at 'approximately $1,500.' That kind of gives the concept of ''Theater of the Absurd' a new meaning.
Maybe my roommate had it right all along.
The Annihilation Bowl, hopefully, represents an opportunity for the art of debate to return to form. Like 52 million other Americans, I avidly watched the presidential and vice-presidential debates during the 2004 campaign. I remember sitting in my apartment, staring at the screen with my jaw hanging open. It had to be one of those two? Really?
I didn''t vote. Watching them throw haymakers at each other completely turned me off of the election - not because, strictly, of what they were saying, but because of their comparative inabilities to say it without having to belittle, deride or otherwise demean their opponent.
More and more, I''m thinking neutrality (and a little decorum) is the key to appreciating this. Coming to a debate with an open mind, and, heaven forbid, maybe a willingness to accept the validity of an opposing point of view will make, if nothing else, for a far less polarizing and more conciliatory experience.
At any rate, come next Thursday I''ll be there in the Wilkinson Center too, and ... drumroll, s''il vous plait ... let the games begin.
(For comments, e-mail Chris Lindsay at chris_lindsay@byu.edu)