With the strong pulse of student activism pumping through every winning president’s campaign, I’d expect a simple shout-out from either candidate.
Mired in squabbles about war theory and redundant accusations, neither candidate could find time to reach us — we futures of tomorrow — during Thursday’s first in a series of presidential debates.
A simple, “God bless America and its hard-working students — our future of tomorrow” would have been just enough.
But instead Kerry blandly thanked the University of Miami for hosting the debate. And Bush, just days before in a interview with Bill O’Reilly, agreed that Harvard and Yale were sanctuaries for liberal pinheads.
I guess dropping kudos to college movements and a need for education reform makes candidates look too liberal. Let’s admit it: Nobody really likes the flower-loving, seaweed eating student advocates.
But if nobody addresses our needs during a public debate, or acknowledge our campaign efforts, college students won’t mind sleeping in on Election Day.
It’s time for Bush and Kerry to salute the new wave of academic troops.
Last time I checked, it was college campuses registering the greatest numbers of youth voters. And college-aged men and women make up the majority of troops fighting the war on terrorism.
But sadly, when the smoke clears, Kerry will suffer the most from the neglect of the college students. It’s not that students will rally around Bush; they just won’t rally at all.
This is not to say that Kerry’s performance was a flop. On the contrary, he came off as sharp and had a keen understanding of what America must do to rehabilitate its image around the world.
Kerry also kept Bush on the defensive by not letting him get away with equating Iraq with the war on terror. Bush tried his best to reinforce the misconception, but Kerry held him accountable.
Still, just two minutes after the debates, I couldn’t remember one prong on Kerry’s multi-layered plan for Iraq.
Even in his matter-of-fact tone and snooty “I’m too sexy for this debate” demeanor, his presentation didn’t draw enough of a contrast with Bush. And Kerry’s “plan” makes choosing a president a coin toss.
In his last-ditch effort to convince us he’s cool — or at least technologically hip — Kerry referred millions of viewers to log onto his Web site for his in-depth plan for Iraq.
But I tuned into the presidential debates because I didn’t want to select a president based on air-brushed pictures, large fonts or colorful links to more propaganda on his Web site.
I watched the debates to see whose charm would triumph over pressure, whose bank of knowledge would cash in and whose stance on the war would be more solid than some multi-pronged plan.
But the candidates are lucky. They have the war to drive most Americans to vote. This includes students who will turn out to vote, but not for a candidate.
The candidates should not merely accept these “war votes.” Even though most students will turn out to vote, the candidates need to reach out and touch youth issues.
The war — a trite issue — will not inspire students to greater civic participation.
A socially astute candidate will.
Malena Amusa is a Medill junior. She can be reached at [email protected].
