The Story
A Divided Campus
In an election where the candidates seem black and white on many issues (no pun intended), it is expected that voters would take a firm stance on one side or the other. As youth involvement has reached a record high, especially in a battleground like Virginia, it just might be expected that students would also be clearly and passionately divided on the issues.
It’s admirable to have these strong opinions, but what will happen when one candidate inevitably serves as president over us all? Can we get back together?
With Facebook groups like “Women Against Sarah Palin” and “One Million Americans Against Barack Obama,” I anticipate a certain level of division after the election. I decided to talk to real students about the issues and see how divided we actually are - before we go to the polls.
Debating the Candidates
Thomas Chappell, a sophomore and tentative government major, was my McCain supporter. Rachel Olcheski, a senior English major, was for Obama. (Unfortunately, I didn’t have time to find any Nader fanatics by the time this went to print.) Although neither interviewee had a chance to hear what the other said, their arguments were pretty discordant. They even repudiated some of each other’s key points, unprompted by me.
At first, Chappell and Olcheski gave similar reasons for supporting their candidates - each one, in their view, represents a positive change for our country.
“I think [Obama is] going to give the country a new face, which is what we need,” said Olcheski. “Our generation hasn’t seen the government do a lot of things that make us feel incredibly loyal and passionate about our country.”
Chappell said, “I think McCain represents the best of our values. I think he will restore America to a more respectable leadership position - as opposed to Bush. I’m not a huge Bush fan.”
Both students agreed that something needs to change, and that change needs to start with George Bush and the government we have grown up with. However, the question becomes: How will we start implementing changes? And what changes, exactly, should we decide on?
Chappell agreed that Obama could elicit activism from our generation. “If Obama wins, we’ll see more interest in politics by college students because he’s a younger guy, somebody who many students respect and look up to,” he said. But Chappell doesn’t see Obama showing enough evidence of plans that will tangibly affect students. “I’m not really sure what he wants to do about making college more affordable. I don’t really know how he’s going to do that.”
Olcheski shed some light on the plan Chappell questioned. “[Obama] has a thing with education. In exchange for community service, students will get $4,000 a year [for tuition]. Community service is one of the greatest things we have,” she said.
“You can’t change the world, but you can change a world,” Olcheski said. “And if you change the world of an individual, that person could turn out to be the next Einstein.”
Olcheski’s view seems to reflect Obama’s. Obama has said the government should invest in every individual because as a society we are dependent on different individuals for different types of knowledge, labor and skills. Everyone counts. Olcheski mentioned that McCain accused Obama of wanting to rob the rich of their hard-earned money in order to spread the wealth around.
“As for the wealthy, it’s not like their taxes are skyrocketing; it’s just that they’re not getting any more cuts [under Obama’s plan],” she said. “There’s a difference between redistribution of wealth and changing taxes. This is not Robin Hood.”
Chappell also believes in supporting the individual, especially the individual college student about to enter the real world. He just disagrees about the method. He sees the potential for higher taxes as detrimental to the enterprising young person.
“It’s important not to take away the incentive to be successful. If you tax the wealthy, you take away some of that incentive.” Still, even though the economy is foremost on the minds of many right now, Chappell finds more wrong with Obama than just his plans to raise taxes.
“I see [Obama] playing a much weaker role in the world, backing down from things, not being as tough in dealing with dictators. I feel like he’s inexperienced and he could make rash decisions,” he said.
Inexperience isn’t what Olcheski is afraid of in terms of America’s foreign policy. She’s afraid of experience that is founded on being too tough. “You know the phrase speak quietly and carry a big stick? I think that works well. McCain speaks very loudly and carries a big stick, and we have problems overseas already.”
She also calls out the McCain campaign on inexperience. “You talk about no experience. [Sarah Palin] seems to live in a complete fantasy world. She’s just completely out of touch. I guess some people identify with her. But you don’t need to identify with your president; they need to be smarter than you,” Olcheski said. “I don’t want someone sitting across the table from Vladimir Putin winking and saying ‘Doggonnit.’”
McCain supporters do realize that Palin has her weaknesses as a VP candidate. Chappell commented, “I will admit she has not been the best in the campaign.”
When I asked him to discuss the man Palin fired for questionable reasons in Alaska, he said, “I’m iffy about it, too. But it won’t deter me from voting for her. She has other good things working for her.”
Chappell cited Palin’s fresh enthusiasm on the McCain campaign and positive image as a powerful woman as reasons to keep her on-board. But Olcheski finds her a hazardous part of a hate-ridden campaign.
“When I see Sarah Palin smiling and waving to a crowd of people who are all shouting ‘terrorist,’ [I’m] not comfortable,” Olcheski said. She’s worried that McCain’s campaign has caused people to adopt dangerous, possibly even violent, mentalities that could carry on after the election.
“Throughout history, plenty of people have done bad things when they get caught up in a political movement. No matter who wins, he’s setting up a divided country,” Olcheski warned. “He’s scared people to the point where they think Obama is associated with people who slaughter Americans.”
At the same time, Chappell sees value in doing a thorough background check on Obama’s associations.
“I think it has been very unfair to both sides, people making empty accusations. Saying Obama’s a terrorist - that’s just wrong,” he said. “But it shouldn’t be considered dirty campaigning if it’s true. I don’t have a problem with people going after the Ayers/Acorn connection, because that’s true.”
Playing Partisans
Both Chappell and Olcheski agree: it has been a fierce campaign on the national level. But what has been happening on the local level? What about William and Mary?
Chappell hasn’t noticed anything too vicious. “I was selling McCain T-shirts, and I got some really snide remarks from people walking by. But there hasn’t been any vandalism, or anything that I’m aware of,” he said. “And I haven’t heard anything on the McCain side negative towards Obama. Not on the whole.”
On the other hand, Olcheski is appalled at the polar partisanship she’s encountered. She talked about a girl friend of hers who was hitting it off with a guy at a party, only to be flat-out dumped when he found out she was a Democrat. Olcheski herself was harassed at a stoplight for having an Obama bumper sticker.
“[The sticker was] totally benign, not dissing anyone. This truck sped up, rolled down the window and started screaming at me, really nasty stuff,” she said. “This is divisive, this is dangerous.”
Granted, the truck driver could have been anyone. He might not have been a student, but his aggression is indicative of a divided political climate. Whether this climate permeates the Williamsburg and College community is less clear.
Chappell testifies that McCain supporters are a minority on campus. But does that mean they are less vocal and divisive, too? Or perhaps it means they are more vocal and flamboyant to get their message heard? Perhaps it means Obama supporters feel comfortable enough in their majority to make snide remarks and not be called out. Either way, both sides contribute to the division.
Coming Back Together
But what has caused such a division? Is it the stark differences in the candidates’ opinions on major issues, like whether we should raise taxes for the wealthy or lower them, whether we should have an aggressive foreign policy or advocate discussions with our adversaries? Does it matter that we debate whether Sarah Palin’s hotness is worth her lack of experience? Has one candidate been the driving force in anger and dirty campaigning, making unreasonable accusations and empty assertions, more than the other?
Chappell and Olcheski have shown two different sides to the campaign that exist on campus. Whether these two sides can coexist harmoniously after the election will depend on the strength of the leader we elect, both to unite us and to bring about change; it will depend on the next president of the United States. By the time this issue goes to print, the mystery will be solved - hopefully.
This piece originally appeared in the November 2008 issue issue of The DoG Street Journal.