On Monday, October 21st, Tufts CIVIC hosted its annual debate between Tufts Democrats and Tufts Republicans. The debate represented the mainstream views of both political parties. Reese Christian, a sophomore and debate participant for the Tufts Democrats, endorses Kamala Harris, whereas Ethan Putlack, a senior and Tufts Republicans President, supports Donald Trump.
Nitika Subramanian, a sophomore and CIVIC e-board member, was pleased by the turnout: “It was really nice to see. I recognized a ton of people from non-political spaces, and I remembered that Tufts is the type of school where most people are politically engaged in some way.”
Despite the debate focusing on the mainstream positions of both parties, the Tribune decided to interview students whose views were not vocalized in the packed room. What are these students concerned about ahead of the 2024 elections? How do they compare to the policies the Tufts Republicans and Democrats espoused during the debate?
Beyond mainstream party politics, Jackson Dempsey, a senior studying Economics and Russian Language, is most concerned with the broader health and well-being of Americans, stating that they have been on the decline for the last 70 years, culminating in the “death of the American community.”
Though he characterizes his views as “common sense,” he admits that most people would describe him as “far-left.” He envisions a new future for America with deliberate urban planning and socio-economic policies that re-invigorate communal life. Dempsey prioritizes reducing carbon-emitting vehicles in exchange for walkable cities, constructed using labor practices that empower “workers to control the means of production.”
Dempsey does not think the Democratic platform offers viable solutions to these problems, which would require “an overhaul of the US economic and social infrastructure.” Likewise, he is dissatisfied with the foreign policy of both major parties.
Yet, Dempsey will still vote for Harris “mainly because [he] think[s] Trump would be too destructive.” He believes that Trump should have been disqualified after January 6th and worries that national division has reached “civil war levels.”
An anonymous “far-right” student similarly believes the nation is steeply declining but for different reasons. He argues that secularism and lack of virtue are the biggest issues America faces. He will support Trump in November, although he thinks “no president can fix the problem” and that the government’s role is “to remind Americans of the virtues that make this country great.”
More than an affirmative vote for Trump, he wants to safeguard against a Harris administration, which he feels would subvert American strength domestically and abroad. He explained, “Vladimir Putin won’t cower before a woman whose campaign was based on the album Brat.” He believes America “requires a masculine president” to regain its geopolitical power and facilitate a cultural rebirth. He also argued that Trump is destined to win if the country is to survive, and that he “will not accept the election results if Trump loses.”
Catie Samaan, a sophomore and executive board member of Tufts Planned Parenthood Action, disagrees with the anonymous conservative’s characterization of a potential Harris administration.
Samaan has been impressed with Harris’ assertiveness since her performance during Brett Kavanaugh’s 2018 Supreme Court confirmation hearings. She also recalls Harris’ firm stance during the 2020 vice presidential debate: “Many will remember the viral ‘Mr. Vice President, I’m speaking’ interjection.” Samaan feels these qualities make Harris the strong leader America needs.
While many Tufts students are politically engaged, others do not share their enthusiasm leading into election day, either because they do not have strong views, feel underqualified to opine, or are deeply disillusioned with democracy.
Rex Feldgoise, a senior and a captain of club soccer, questions the benefits of political hobbyism. Despite wanting to be more informed, he struggles to find the time, asking, “[w]hat does staying up to date besides being informed really give me personally, especially in a state like Massachusetts where my Democratic vote doesn’t count that much?” He defers to friends and family to stay “generally” informed. When asked about the country’s most important issue, Feldgoise pondered, “What do people usually say? Immigration, gun control, the economy, national security…”
Another senior, Nolan Schenk, captain of club tennis, expresses similar exhaustion. When tensions run as high as they do in the current political climate, he finds himself comfortable with “not always having an opinion” and wishes others would feel the same. He cares deeply about the environment and trusts that the Democratic Party will work most effectively toward those interests. However, he expresses awareness of the stigma attached to admitting limited political knowledge. Schenk and Feldgoise are both apprehensive to enter political conversations when elections are framed in high-stakes terms.
A final anonymous student dismisses the American electoral system, refusing to vote or be civically engaged “because our democracy is cringe and fake.” He claims that American democratic institutions merely serve as “rubber stamps,” giving people the illusion of choice, and have transformed our country’s purpose into “increas[ing] the GDP by a few points.” According to him, the only solution is “believ[ing] in something beyond materialistic outcomes.”
Despite the prescription, the student believes that America’s window to fix itself has passed “because the metaphysical momentum since the Enlightenment is too far gone.” If he were to pick a candidate, it would be J.D. Vance because he is an elite who understands “the deeper metaphysical questions that politics requires candidates to answer.”
But not even Vance would be enough to save America, according to the self-described “far-right” student, as “you can’t set the clock back two hours; you need to break the clock.”
These ideological outliers should not be surprising. CIVIC’s Subramanian acknowledges that the Tufts political climate is not ready to welcome these perspectives: “There are certain opinions that you just will not hear, or that it is unacceptable to hear in certain political or advocacy spaces.” Far-left, far-right, or politically apathetic political views have traditionally remained hidden from mainstream campus discourse. Even in this brief examination, we uncovered a range of political views at Tufts that cannot simply be labeled as “Democrat,” or “Republican.”
Disclaimer: Tessa Moore, co-president of Tufts CIVIC and writer for the Tribune, was not involved in this article.
Photo by Tomás Gómez Revelo (October 21st, 2024)