Whip Me, Beat Me

Almost exactly a week ago the students of our prestigious university averted, thanks to the relative sanity of approximately twenty voters, what could have been the worst possible outcome in our ASUO elections. In Bill Washburn, the University of Oregon students had before them the epitome of what is an all too common specimen: the worm politic. To the discredit of us all, he nearly won.

I have to allow that Washburnıs campaign was suited, in a textbook fashion, to the P.C. atmosphere of this campus. Employing buzz-words such as "multiculturalism" and "empowerment" was only an important, if barely noticed tactic. Similarly, the empty pledge to "reinvent" the ASUO was, if not a stroke of originality or genius, a move which betrayed more than a little political savvy.

I was almost incredulous reading the Washburn/Sunada flyers. Right below the heading of "tangible solutions for changing our campus" were four buzz-words whose total vagueness cannot possibly be described. Fortunately, merely listing them should be sufficient. "Cultural Diversity" appeared to be tangible solution number one, in both place and importance. Number two, "Affordable Tuition." The third, "Reinventing ASUO." And finally, "Safety." Can someone please tell me what the hell these flyers mean? Just reading them casually, the only thing I could glean from these catchy little phrases was: Nothing. They were all just a bunch of nothing. Bull shit. Hot air. Stupid, nonsensical utterances were trying to be passed along as "tangible solutions."

Just to make sure I was not judging their platform prematurely, I checked out the hip "Washburn/Sunada in ı96" web site. Once again, I found a whole lot of nothing. Grandiose or petty, each and every statement consisted of intricately contrived wordings which amounted to "solutions" that were broad at best, and often indecipherable.

The problem with Billy making an issue of multiculturalism is incredibly simple. It is not an issue. Chris Kantrowitz almost stated as much, in one of the more refreshing moments of this yearıs campaign. What he did not say, but what should have been said, is that the atmosphere of this campus does not need to be further subdivided along ethnic or racial lines. Rather, we need to stand as one community. Where we divide people along those lines, we create the seeds for mistrust and even uninformed hatred. By playing this card, Washburn (and almost every other candidate, for that matter) did nothing to encourage the solidarity of students. All he did was cuddle up once again to the dominant paradigm on campus, which encourages exactly the opposite, in an effort to win votes.

One of the most insidious ploys of Billyıs campaign was very much in keeping with the tenets of cultural diversity. He consciously chose a female minority member as a running mate.

Now I want you to understand that women, minorities and women minorities certainly deserve a voice in our student union, but anyone who was a witness to the Greek-sponsored candidate debates should know where I am coming from, when I say Kelly Sunada is a moron. Carichoff and Yeh might have been boring, Ositis and Louie certainly seemed flustered, but Sunada was witless. Her promise to combat the "planned" increase of the fee for breaking student housing contracts (from one dollar a day to two) met with an interesting audience question, which can stand for her entire vice-presidential bid. It turns out that this "planned" increase had already been determined. Was she aware of this, and what did she and Washburn plan to do about this development? Kellyıs answer, for which the audience endured a minute of Billy whispering in his stricken running mateıs ear, consisted of, "I didnıt know that." I swear, if you watched the scene you could almost see Bill pulling on those strings, maybe even his lips moving...

Choosing a minority woman could be construed as admirable if it was done to assure that the interests served by the ASUO were truly affected by multiple viewpoints. Choosing one who is virtually a puppet is a despicable and obvious method of whoring for votes.

Kellyıs experience, remember, consisted basically of being a comptroller (a.k.a., ASUO lick spittle), the co-president of the Hawaii Club (comparable, I am sure, to being co-president of the student body--when we were in junior high) and (this is the really impressive one) playing volleyball. Is anyone else reminded of high school student government candidates?

I hate to leave the subject of Sunada so soon; I really doubt that I have said enough to make people realize how abhorrent Washburn acted in thus pandering to the prevalent P.C. powers-that-be. Nevertheless, Billy is the subject of this piece, and for all her faults, I do not believe for a second that Sunada acted with the same explicit intentions as Washburn.

While his evocation of politically correct ideas was to be expected, Washburnıs ability to pose as a revolutionary outsider, while simultaneously relating his apparently endless efforts within the present "un-reinvented" system was baffling. Apparently, he has dedicated himself thoroughly to every politically correct cause he could catch wind of, joining so many committees that my head spun just to hear them listed. Now, the man who must be the biggest ASUO insider on campus, not to mention the ballot, was promising to "reinvent" the institution to which he seems to have dedicated approximately three hundred hours per week. Here I have to confess my arithmetic to have been hurried, my list of Billyıs engagements incomplete, and my knowledge of the time commitment involvement with each completely minimal. If I have underestimated your dedication, Billy, accept my humble apologies.

So now, the real question: Why in the world did Bill Washburn come within less than two dozen votes of becoming the next ASUO executive? Call me a cynic, but my answer is simple: Democracy and the politically correct. On a campus where kissing ass is the order of the day, the candidate who puckers up closest to the mainstream ideology is guaranteed to be rewarded. Washburnıs almost cathartic exaltation of multiculturalism seemed, to many voters, expressive of exactly how they themselves should feel. The ideological, self-deceiving, and illogical liberals turned out in near-droves.

I do not know when students, or Americans in general, will finally learn that the candidate who tells them the most things they want to hear is the one whom they should least want in office. After all, they are flattered to hear those whose aspire to leadership parroting the very sentiments which they hold dear, especially when these sentiments are based on whatever ideological nonsense happens to be popular at the time.

Washburnıs campaign was precisely that, and he almost won. Every platform, every issue was a predictable one. Every opinion was the majority opinion. Every "tangible change" was an intangible nothing proposed to strengthen the status quo. Every statement made was calculated to simultaneously say the least and carry the most appeal.

Hanging around the ASUO and other government types for as long as he has, it is no wonder that Billy has learned his lessons well. I have no doubt that some day he will make a fine toady to some ass-kissing politician. Certainly, thanks to the sanity of some twenty voters, I still have enough faith in democracy to believe that he will never actually hold political office. Donıt get me wrong, we Americans do not demand nearly enough of our leaders, but there are two illusions we demand they be capable of sustaining: the illusion of new ideas, and the illusion of a backbone. Fortunately, Bill Washburn could ultimately succeed at neither.

Mike Kron, a sophomore majoring in English, is a staff writer for the Oregon Commentator