On Monday, October 25th, 2010, the University of Delaware hosted a political discussion between Howard Dean and Karl Rove in the Bob Carpenter Center. It was an intense, hour-long conversation between two political pundits with opposing political ideologies. Howard Dean previously served as the governor of Vermont and ran for the Democratic nomination in the 2004 Presidential election. Since serving as the Democratic National Committee chairman for the past four years, he actively contributes to CNBC. On the other side of the political spectrum, Karl Rove is most notably known as being “The Architect” behind both of President George W. Bush’s presidential victories. He served as President Bush’s deputy chief of staff and his senior advisor throughout both administrations. Rove currently contributes to the Fox News channel and The Wall Street Journal.
The discussion was geared towards answering questions that came from UD students. One of the policy issues discussed was the building of the “mosque” at Ground Zero in New York City, more formally known as the Park 51 project. The problem wasn’t actually defined during the event. However, the question was worded as the following: “Do you support the building of the mosque at Ground Zero?” To me, this implies that the “problem” is the actual location of the project: Ground Zero. Dean responded to this issue first and said that the people behind the building of this project “have a constitutional right to do it.” However, he does not support the project itself. He explained that there are three groups of people involved in this controversial issue: the pro group, the anti group, and the uncomfortable group. Minority voters mostly occupy the pro group, the anti group, no matter what, will feel negatively about the issue, and people who do not feel comfortable with the location due to personal or ethical reasons are apart of the uncomfortable group. In order to resolve this issue, Dean suggests that “we need an open discussion” among concerned citizens. He insists that the idea of possibly changing the location of the “mosque” building must exist, otherwise there is no room in the discussion for compromise.
Rove’s opinion on the issue is not that far from Dean’s. He, also, does not support the building of the “mosque.” He feels the fact that it is said to be at Ground Zero is morally unacceptable. He strong believes we should respect those who lost loved ones to the 9/11 attacks. Rove compared this the controversy surrounding the convent that nuns wanted to open near the site of the Auschwitz concentration camp. After much discussion, the location of the convent was moved elsewhere as many Jewish-faith believers felt uncomfortable with the original location. Rove suggests that the location of the “mosque” should also be reconsidered as it is a very sensitive subject for many people. In both speakers’ opinions, the “winners” of their proposed action would be the people in the anti and uncomfortable groups. If the location of the mosque was in fact changed, these groups of people would benefit most. The “losers” are the people in the pro group. They view this “mosque” as a community center and have no intention of associating this building solely with the Islamic faith. If the location was moved, these people would not be able to completely fulfill their original goals.
I thought this event was very interesting as it was much more intense than I expected. With all of the questions asked being generated from UD students, it allowed the debate to focus on issues that our generation cares about the most. When the speakers said something that pleased the audience, people clapped and cheered for them. This reminded me of when members of Congress applaud or do not applaud the President when he gives the State of the Union. This added to the experience and made me feel like I was at an official political event. This was only one of the many political events that have been brought to UD this fall: an opportunity that should be taken advantage of by all.
