Composed During and Directly Following the Sept 30Presidential Debate on International Policy and Homeland Security

3AM - 30/09:The dank Egyptian air hangs hot and heavy as the nextgeneration of self-selected foreign policy gurus settles infront of the TV to watch the live overseas broadcast of thefirst 2004 Presidential Debate. The smell of stale beer andcheap scotch coats the furniture like the ghosts of deadold men.I’m sitting in a big apartment in the Cairo districtof Zamalek. Me and the hundred and twenty or so other 20-somethings who wait anxiously for the Homeland Securitysparks and War on Terror tremors to fly are one month intoour study abroad program. Interestingly, we’re also justone month away from the most important election we’ve beenalive for, and it seems, constantly just one

step

away fromcombusting in an uncontrolled and rampant nationalinsanity.As the hour approaches and host Luke lays down theground rules (“no talking, arguing, yelling, or being adick during the debate!”) it’s impossible not to feel the

overwhelming the group.

is that intangible butconstantly-present significance which makes base instinctscome out during politically momentous occasions.

is thatthing which makes you tell your 20-year old self, confidentin your judgment of right and wrong and what that mustmean, that you are willing to man up and take it outside ifneed be.

is that

passion

that the once-passionaterelegate to youthful indulgence and the now-passionatedemand they will keep forever.

is timeless, and does notgive a good Goddamn which event or era

comes out in.With 120 warm bodies full of Cairo night, Sakkarabeer, and comfort in their knowledge of tonight’s topic,you can bet that

is on full display tonight. On a couchacross the way, a group of outspoken republicans makes abig “W” and yells, to which another couch responds withhalf-kidding calls of “neo-con fucks.” This is the circus,with PBS’s esteemed ringmaster Jim Lehrer to snap the whip.I settled back and wondered what I would see…* * *

As I sat there and watched the absurd preceding, Icouldn’t help but gape, not at the moral villainy orOrwellian doublespeak of current American politics, but ofthe desperate confusion which is absolutely surrounding usand eating our souls. This confusion certainly hasramifications for this election, but most of all seemspoised to completely alter the political dynamic for thoseof us premaritals over in Egypt, or Japan, or back inAmerica, learning about the world and our place in it, andjust

starting

to figure ourselves out now.What was most surprising and really, insane, abouttonight’s debate was not to be found in the words of GeorgeBush. Both his staunchly militaristic and morally defendedpositions and incredibly lack of eloquence were well-knownand oft-quipped pillars of American popular culture. Hisideological-empiricism-in-the-name-of-self-defense-and-preemptive-safety, an ideology that hails the gloriousmarch of “freedom” into the world of the repressed andliberty-less as the categorical imperative of Americanpower was, for him, nothing new. The callousness with whichhe levied the term “freedom,”

the very definition of and situational applicability of which forms the corediscussion of our great democracy

, has no equal, save maybeMel Gibson’s William Wallace in “Braveheart,” yet stillthis was more of the same.No, what was amazing was that the alternativepresented to this depravity was a John F. Kerry, shroudedin the mantel of days gone by and Cold Warrior glory. Hiscandor and demeanor were excellent, and it was clear thathis Clinton-admin debate coaches had done their jobs well,yet his words could not help but feel like a harkening tothe not-so-distant past.Less than half-way into the night, Kerry statedclearly and unequivocally that Kennedy and

Reagan

weremodels of his for having used preemptive military prowesssuccessfully. He said he wished to “follow in theirfootsteps.” Excuse me? Did mine ears deceive me? Did Kerry,the

democratic candidate

, just reference

Reagan

, the manwho ushered in the Reagan youth and a new era of hip youngfiscal conservatism and hawkish international involvement?The strange connection to past republican presidentsand policy did not stop there, either. In discussing theIraq situation, the Boston Brahmin made sure to reference

the (according to Kerry) sagacious wisdom of George theElder which avoided becoming an occupying force in theregion. Then, when questioned as to his ability to trulysecure American safety, JFK v.2004 dropped the E-bomb. Justhaving received his endorsement a day earlier, Kerry letthe world know that John Eisenhower, son of the

original

Cold Warrior, was in his corner. Finally, when asked whatthe greatest threat to American security, he jumpedstraight to Nuclear Proliferation, saying that we needed to“contain” the spread of nukes across borders. The choice ofworse was, in all likelihood, not arbitrary.The night came to an end as both candidates explainedthat it was imperative for the still-fledging Russiandemocracy to maintain its current institutions and restrainfrom implementing autocratic reforms, no matter what thedire circumstances seemed to require. Kerry, for sure, wasthe firmer of the two, and finished his time off with aquote from George F. Will, one of the most prominentconservative columnists in the country.So what’s the deal? Is John Kerry just a big jerkbox?A slippery politician, desirous only of his own ascendancy?Maybe. There’s a good chance, however, that he’s justreading the signs left by a hopelessly confused electorateteetering on the brink of insanity and nausea cause by amillennial cocktail of fear, self-preservation, misguidedpatriotism, and instability. The post-September 11

Bushera has been one in which the specter of harm ‘round thebend has ruled the roost. It has been a time in which thefear of loss and “so-you-better-do-this’s” has become theprimary political currency. It is reinforced on TV daily,and it has been picked up by every politician seekingoffice. Many of our core values have not changed, but theway in which we perceive threats to our livelihood and ourwilling visceral response to these threats, in words anddeed, is nothing short of staggering. There has never beenan election in which a candidate opposing a sociallyconservative foreign-policy unilateralist could moveeffortlessly from defending the necessity and morality ofstem-cell research and a woman’s right to choose to usingthe phrase “hunt down [our enemies] and

kill

them” threetimes without any apparent contradiction.Indeed, The strange character of this election is thatit is one in which traditional party and ideologicaldesignations are coming apart at the seams and apparently,