The Great Debate

Recently, I attended a congressional debate hosted at Glenbrook South High School between Robert Dold and Dan Seals. I heard about the debate in my social studies class, where our teacher strongly encouraged us to go for the sake of educating ourselves about our local politics and being involved in our historic democratic tradition (a.k.a. we would not be receiving any extra credit for attending). I decided to go because, like many of my classmates, I had never been to anything like it before. I’m not excessively interested in politics, but I’m beginning to see the importance of keeping up to date with current events.

The debate itself definitely exceeded my expectations. I prepared to be bored and confused, and happily, I was neither. Remarks were short and snappy, and clear enough that without any real prior knowledge of the candidates, I understood what was going on. I learned a lot about their views, but one of the things that struck me most was how catty and manipulative a professional political debate could be.

Immediately at the introductions, I noticed each candidate’s attempts to woo the audience, citing their accomplishments. I thought it was particularly amusing that Dold identified himself as a Boy Scout and Scoutmaster, titles which imply trustworthiness and loyalty, as well as a slew of other positive adjectives as laid down in the Boy Scout Law. Soon after the opening statements, while discussing tax cuts, Dold referenced the American Dream and nationalism, appealing to the feel-good patriotic side of potential voters. Not to be outdone, Seals followed by quoting Abraham Lincoln when talking about education and the No Child Left Behind Act. By appealing to emotion, I think both candidates were attempting to promote positive American and de mocratic associations with their campaigns, rather than the typical negative connotations associated with crooked Illinois politics.

Yet as the debate went on, it just got dirtier and dirtier. The candidates progressed from subtle barbs to full-blown attacks on each other, and needless to say, I found it to be quite interesting. I understood that it’s normal to try to undermine the opponent in a debate, but I never thought it would be so blatant. It was so interesting how their bickering and pointing out of each others flaws reminded me of typical high school cattiness.

While I was entertained, the debate left me unsure of my views. Between all the contradictions and generalizations, I (as well as many other teens) didn’t get a truthful experience. Maybe it just requires experiences and learning to read between the lines to determine what the candidates are really saying, and which one really means what he or she says. If I were able to vote in this election, I would definitely research more about the candidates and maybe even attend other political events.

As a 17-year-old, I am still too young to make my voice really heard by voting, but I do think it is important for teens to be involved in politics at some level. At the same time, we need to take care to not take everything at face value. It would be a terrible idea to form an unwavering stance from a biased Opportunities like local debates (publicized in schools) with class discussions and programs like Rock the Vote are great ways to involve teenagers and begin to involve us in the democratic system on which our nation is founded.

For adults, when did you first start paying attention to politics? How did you get involved, and how do you think this has changed for current generations?

For adolescents, are you involved? Why do you care? I’m still trying to find my way in this messy business, so I would love some guidance. Thanks!

(To read more about the what the debate covered and another teen's view, click here.)