Sara Rosner
Staff Writer
As the nation prepares to vote in the presidential elections this November, Pepperdine faculty gave the community a glimpse of the issues that are defining the campaign trails of Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry and Republican candidate President Bush.
The debate, which was held in Smother’s Theatre Tuesday night, was attended by students, faculty and several Malibu residents.
“I was just kind of interested to see more of the issues that are involved,” said freshman Rachael Mitchell. “Because a lot of what we see in the media is just about the backgrounds of the candidates.”
Chris Soper, chair and associate professor of political science, joined Dan Caldwell, professor of political science, to advocate the election of Sen. John Kerry while Robert Lloyd, professor of international studies, and Doug Kmiec, professor of constitutional law, at the Pepperdine School of Law defended the re-election of President Bush.
Although a variety of subjects were addressed in the hour-and-a-half long event, both sides focused on the repercussions of Sept. 11, 2001 and the state of American foreign policy.
“Foreign policy will be a central, if not the central issue addressed by the candidates,” Caldwell said.
Caldwell began the forum by citing that the Bush administration had unsigned a treaty for the establishment of the International Criminal Court, withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and also backed off from peace efforts in the Middle East and in North and South Korea.
According to Caldwell, these actions are not nearly as harmful to American foreign relations as the war in Iraq.
“Today, the dissension in the international community has been caused most notably by the war in Iraq,” Caldwell said.
In support of President Bush, Lloyd argued the Bush administration had been consistent with foreign policy.
“It’s been three years since the 9/11 attacks on the United States and President Bush has responded with a foreign policy that emphasizes freedom and security not just for the United States, but around the globe,” Lloyd said.
Lloyd went on to justify the administration’s reasons for going to Iraq by highlighting the anthrax attacks in Florida and Washington, D.C., and the evidence that some militant Islamic groups were a threat to Americans.
Lloyd also acknowledged that although some nations voiced dissent, the Bush administration did have support going into Iraq.
“The Bush administration, members of congress, the U.N. security council and in many cases the international community examined intelligence on Iraq and saw a continued threat,” Lloyd said.
Domestic issues such as unemployment, the national economy, taxes and re-institution of the draft were also briefly addressed by the debaters.
Soper approached the subject of the economy mentioning rising unemployment rates and healthcare costs, falling median incomes and growing budget deficits.
“In domestic politics are we better off than we were four years ago?” asked Soper. “…It doesn’t take a whole lot of imagination to realize that for most Americans the answer to that question is no.”
In response to Soper, Kmiec pointed out that the Bush administration had been faced with unusual hardships.
“In truth, in the past four years, the challenges that our country has confronted, I don’t think any of us really appreciates the gravity and seriousness of those responsibilities,” Kmiec said.
Despite the contrast of opinions, the strong turnout supported the mutual objective mentioned by the debate’s moderator and University Provost Daryl Tippens.
“A great democracy demands informed, involved and educated voters,” Tippens said.
Students had their own opinions as well.
“I think all four of the professors had different strengths and weaknesses, and I think we got a pretty well rounded view of the issues in the debate,” said senior Mike Swan.
09-30-2004