CPU Panel Examines the Bush Presidency

Just as every classroom discussion since Sept. 11 has been colored by the events at the World Trade Center, last night's Columbia Political Union panel discussion on the Bush presidency turned into a debate on military strategy and social policy in reaction to the recent terrorist attacks.

The discussion among panelists Professor Robert Shapiro, Brendan Miniter of The Wall Street Journal, and freelance writer JoAnn Wypijewski was mediated by Jeffrey Friedman, a Barnard political science professor, and was held in the Lerner Cinema.

Originally, the CPU had scheduled a panel discussion on stem cell research, but "given everything that's happened," said Jessica Huang, CC '03, events coordinator for the CPU, "we thought this would be a little more appropriate."

At the outset of the discussion, panelists agreed that public opinion of Bush has changed dramatically since the attacks.

"Clearly, people aren't telling jokes about Bush anymore," Wypijewski said.

However, in response to another panelist's comment, Wypijewski said that public displays of patriotism do not mean "that the country is united for all out war."

"People always rally around the president [in a time of crisis]," she said.

Miniter disagreed, asserting that it is Bush's strong leadership both before and after the crisis that has garnered the support of the nation. He stressed that the current situation is an opportunity for Bush to distinguish his presidency.

"This is going to change the domestic agenda, as well as the military agenda and the foreign agenda," Miniter said.

The military agenda of the Bush presidency moved to the forefront of the discussion as panelists addressed the Bush administration's options for military action in response to the terrorist attacks.

"I don't think this is a question about Bush's presidency," Wypijewski said, bristling at Miniter's claim that the outcome of the conflict will validate or discredit the viability of small government. "Certainly, [this moment] is pivotal for him personally, but for us the question isn't whether there's a big government or a small one as much as if we go to war."

The clearest partisan conflict arose when Miniter and Wypijewski disagreed on the wisdom of a military strike on Afghanistan.

Miniter said that a military attack is inevitable and necessary. "We're going to have to kill some people ... we're going to have to bomb some stuff in the Middle East," Miniter said.

Wypijewski, visibly agitated, countered that a violent approach has "huge ramifications," including the potential to precipitate war in Pakistan. "How do you help people rid themselves of their own monsters? Certainly not by destroying their [country's] infrastructure," she said.

Though the panel strayed from the title topic of the discussion, Friedman called the event a success, saying that it wasn't the CPU's intention to "talk solely on the Bush presidency."

"The ideal [of this type of panel discussion] is educational," he said, adding that the discussion was valuable because it helped listeners explore different points of view instead of just solidifying previously held opinions.

This event was the third panel discussion that the CPU has sponsored. Of last year's panels, one addressed Bush's faith-based initiative, the other Mayor Giuliani's administration.

Huang said the CPU is considering sponsoring monthly panel discussions based on feedback from events such as the one held last night. "We're going to see how this one goes and play it by ear," Huang said.