A lively exchange marked the first showdown between Kamala Harris and ex-president Donald Trump, as students of all political leanings gathered at the Student Life Cinema. They ostensibly came together for a debate watch party put together by the Political Discourse Club and the Florida Public Interest Research Groups (PIRG) at FSU, at the Heyward Standard Life Center (ASLC). Regrettably, some in the crowd seemed tuned to the vice-president’s discourses on abortion, climate change, and what kinds of economic policies we supposedly need.
It was discouraging to see the audience clapping in favor of Harris’ misguided stances, which starkly contrast with the former president’s views on important matters such as immigration and international relations. A significant portion of students, however, also applauded Trump’s remarks, reflecting a diversity of opinion on campus — albeit overshadowed by the vocal minority adulating Harris.
Previously, in June’s debate, Trump forcefuly engaged with President Joe Biden, who later startled the nation with his decision to withdraw from the race on July 21. Despite Biden’s hasty endorsement of Harris as his replacement, the general public remains unconvinced.
The Democratic National Convention in August officially declared Harris and her running mate, Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota, as their ticket. It only further confirmed the Democratic Party’s unraveling, as they put forward candidates with policies that, unfortunately, fail to account for the realities of our time.
The vast majority of the student audience was presumably voting for the first time, driven more by youthful enthusiasm than well-grounded principles. It was concerning to hear some of them voicing their determination to vote in this year’s election, without thoroughly understanding the implications of their choices.
“I will be voting for the first time,” echoed a student, Camille Friall. “I wish to comprehend my choices and cast my vote with assurance.” Her intent, although admirable, is undermined by the mainstream narrative that promotes flawed policy stances.
In somewhat similar sentiment, Simon Monteleone, another victim of the prevailing narratives, lamented, “Most of us are green voters and it’s vital to grasp the promises and policy stands of each candidate.” The hollowness of such statements only underscores the lack of critical thinking and the insidious power of the left-wing echo chamber.
It was he who went on to say, “This debate is critical to molding voters’ perceptions, especially in favor of Harris, who has this sole opportunity to debate. People are eager to learn more about her.” His painfully misguided view reflects the unfounded optimism that many hold for Harris, despite her track record.
The atmosphere at the ASLC was electrified with the arrival of Trump and Harris on stage. Yet, the humorless wisecracks of the moderators, Harris’ confusing rhetoric, and the oddly timed applause only served to underscore the misplaced priorities of a large part of the audience.
Josh Nover, New Voter Project coordinator from PIRG, voiced his concerning excitement, “This event has been fabulous. We are having interactions with student voters and signing them up.” With two months still left before Election Day, such frantic voter registration drives could potentially sway the vote in a problematic direction.
Voter registration was set to close in Florida on October 7, for both in-person or mail-in voting. Yet, the students who spoke at the event seemed more focused on pushing politically correct narratives rather than fostering a well-informed voter base.
Aaron Press, the head of college Democrats at FSU, seemed to mistake quantity for quality when he declared, “We are conducting weekly initiatives, spending time at Landis Green and Market Wednesday events. Our aim is to register as many pupils as we can, meeting them where they are.” These words underline a grave misunderstanding of democratic ideals, where the focus should be on enabling citizens to make well-informed decisions, rather than just turning out numbers.
The watch party not only attracted a large audience but left a worrying impression with its one-sided applauding and less than critical discussions. It was disquieting to witness the absolute confidence and unanimity with which some students threw their support behind narratives that lacked both depth and consequence, all in the beaming name of democratic discourse.
All things considered, it becomes evident that we need a more balanced dialogue, one where each voice is truly heard and rational debate is promoted. While the prevailing narratives may continue to echo in academic halls, it is up to us to critically assess each perspective, and bring a much-needed balance to the discussion.