Well, the first debate of the last presidential campaign of the 20th century has come and gone. Both participants were sharp, ready, and looking to mix it up with the other. Bob Dole, in an attempt to contrast his plain-spoken, Kansas wisdom with the Pres ident's slick-Willie image, showed us some humor many had never seen before. Clinton on the other hand, obviously well prepared and comfortable in his surroundings, appeared somewhat too serious at times.President Clinton utilized every trick to reassure the American people. His well placed smiles, welcoming hand gestures, and soft tones confirmed with his constituency that they were better off now that four years ago. Bob Dole, jumping on the band wagon that Ronald Reagan started, pointed out that many things were, in fact, worse now, than four years ago. Big government is getting bigger, taxes are smothering working families, drug use among teen-agers has increased, and America's image as a world superpower is crumbling.

Clinton and Dole had obviously agreed to be as cordial and polite as possible - no serious mudslinging allowed. Yet, both found a way to get their respective digs in, with Dole exploiting the liberal vane, and Clinton pointing to Dole's voting record on s ocial programs that help working families. Yet, Dole, to his credit, avoided the character issue, cleverly disguised in moderator Jim Lehrer's question regarding Bill Clinton's personality.

Although I do not agree wholeheartedly with Ross Perot's stance on the issues, I wonder if the cordial nature of the debates would have remained. I believe Perot should have been included. Besides that fact that he received $29 million dollars in taxpayer money, people need to see the contrast of a third viewpoint. When there is a voice that bucks the status quo, the insiders are forced to justify why we should support the mainstream. Perot's alleged extremism has to be exposed, if in fact it is extreme. If he is not allowed to participate, his views cannot be challenged and the voters are less informed.

The presidential debates are supposed to be held for the benefit of the voting public. And for the reasons alone, live, televised debates should continue. Participants need a forum to present their visions of the future and justifications as to why their vision is the right one. However, when orchestrated presentations of opposing viewpoints are perpetrated as a free and candid deliberation of the issues, I worry that voters will be mislead. Just look at the Democratic and Republican conventions. Both hug e Hollywood-like productions, designed to capitalize on our society's sound-bite mentality. Oh sure, each convention had its moments, but those moments were well planned and the timing was impeccable.

The fear of a political faux pau is so tantamount, that participants stage each and every moment of the event. It is one thing to be well prepared for a frank discussion of the topics. Practice and hardwork are minimum requirements. However, it is somethi ng far different when everyone agrees that no one should look bad, everyone will look good, and if we can agree to get past this together, we all will be no worst for the wear. I question for whose benefits was this production for.

Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating a no-holds-barred screamfest. A platform where participants sit across from each other and attempt to drown their opponent aids no one. Such displays could easily lead viewers to conclude that these "children" need some quiet time so they can learn play together. Additionally, mudslinging tactics have never promoted participation in the political process, and usually leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the viewer.

I would appreciate, as would most would-be shareholders in our future, a hard hitting discussion of the issues, chock full of tangible, understandable facts and memorable quotes. I want to make an informed decision at the ballot box. If I cannot be sure o f how our leaders envision the future, how can I be sure.

David H. Benton is a third-year law student, member of the ASUA President's cabinet and Arizona Student Association board member. His column, 'Another Perspective,' appears Tuesdays.

---

Daily Wildcat News Opinions Sports PoliceBeat Comics