Activists (La)Duke It Out

Preaching to the Converted: Junior Dave Karpf debated the merits of Al Gore against Nader backer Ty Moore, senior, in Wednesday's debate. (photo by Pauline Shapiro)

"The winner will be determined by whose supporters cheer the loudest," said politics professor Chris Howell, moderator of Wednesday's debate between senior Ty Moore, representing Green Party candidate Ralph Nader's campaign, and junior Dave Karpf, who represented the Democratic Party nominee Al Gore. But the audience had already take the initiative, loudly applauding their favorite candidate, in what proved to be a lively exchange of progressive ideas, an antidote for those who may have found the official national debates a bit lacking.

King 306 was virtually filled, with as many as 100 people reported ly in attendance. Although that number had dwindled significantly by the end of the debate, it lasted for nearly two and a half hours, with an audience question-and-answer session at the end.

Senior Ty Moore began the debate with his opening statement, speaking with a commanding style and delivering his message forcefully that the two political parties are both two heads of corporate America. "This is the most important election of our lifetime, the first significant left break since Eugene V. Debs...It is the beginning of the collapse of the two-party system," said Moore.

He also said that Ralph Nader is the head of a substantial grassroots movement and is trying to change the system, a movement he equated to other social movements of the 1930s and 60s. "Don't buy into the fear-mongering that the Democrats have used. A vote for Gore is a blow to the Progressive movement. If you're in a swing state, all the more reason to vote for Nader."

Senior Dave Karpf, the former National Director of the Sierra Student Coalition, used a much more quiet and thoughtful manner, abandoning the podium early in the debate to establish a conversational tone, often forfeiting one or two minutes of his statements to retain that time for rebuttals. He repeated his point that "It's too much to risk," stating that if George W. Bush won the election, there was a good chance that all three branches of government would be controlled by the Republican Party, which would be "the end of checks and balances." Karpf centered on the environment and his work with the Sierra Coalition, stating that if Bush were elected, he would be fighting a defensive battle. "Gore isn't perfect. He won't give us everything that we want on a silver platter. But it's too much to risk. If this is fear mongering, fine. I'm afraid, and I'll let you know that."

Although Karpf retained his quiet tone throughout the debate, he was visibly agitated with Moore's implication that those who support Gore don't support the progressive movement. "I'm offended when I'm told by Ralph Nader that the things we work on don't matter," Karpf said. Moore later apologized, stating that he meant that the gains made by groups like the Sierra Club were undermined by the political system which both Bush and Gore uphold.

Toward the end of the debate, Moore and Karpf drew a clear contrast between how the two debaters saw reform. "We need to borrow a chapter from the Christian Coalition's book," Karpf said, meaning that he felt that progressive Democrats should try to change the Democratic Party by slowly taking positions from the ground up. Moore said that the only way to reform was the create a "New Democratic Party," different from the current one. "We have to create a movement for change," Moore said.

If there was one thing which both sides agreed on, it was that the 2000 election was one of the most important in decades. Although only one audience member admitted to changing opinions, those on both sides were given much to think about in this important upcoming decision.