The “Great Debate”
On the evening of December 4, 2015, I found myself getting ready for a debate—an unlikely spot for an 81 year old who had never been in a formal debate before in his life.
As I waited to “go on stage,” My mind wandered to thoughts of Bernie Sanders and Maggie Smith.
Maggie is my age, and plays the elderly dowager on the popular TV show “Downton Abbey”—a rerun of which I had recently watched.
Bernie was now 74 years old, and I had heard him speak that very day as a candidate for President of the U.S.
He must know that, if elected, a 2nd term is a distinct possibility. And he would be my age, 81, before his second term would be over.
So these people — at my age — are or may be taking on some pretty serious tasks, involving thinking, memorizing and speaking. Why do/would they do it, when they could just be relaxing, and basking in their past successes?
That was exactly what I was thinking when Ann White, president of the College Alumni Club, asked me last year to participate in this debate with Wally Mead as a part of the club’s 125th anniversary celebration.
I asked then, “What would Maggie and Bernie do?” As I was about to step on stage, I was asking “Why would Maggie and Bernie do it?” (Recognizing, of course, that my little role was thousands of times less daunting than theirs.)
So is there a moral to this story — this microcosm of much more serious involvement? Let me paint a picture of the event and how I felt about it, to see if a moral pops out.
Why The Debate?
In the present day, the College Alumni Club members give speeches every month, followed by a discussion.
But in the 1890s, not only did they give speeches, they had debates!
So the Club wanted re-enact “an 1892 debate” in its 125-year Anniversary Celebration and Wally Mead and I got tabbed to lock debate horns with each other.
I guess they chose us “old guys” because the debate had actually taken place a long time ago.
What Was the Debate About?
Not only did they have Democrats and Republicans in the 1892 Presidential Election, but the new Populist party had slipped into the mix too.
And a part of the Populist platform was a position in favor of having a graduated income tax for the United States of America.
So the debate topic we chose was as follows:
Be it resolved that the United States should have a graduated income tax, rather than tax everyone the same.
Wally would argue the pro position, and I would argue the con.
What Were The Challenges in Preparing For The Debate?
Now Wally and I have been around the block a few times in our lives.
And we both knew that everyone involved would be better served if we used a script for the mini-debate, rather that have us two old competitive windbags hold forth extemporaneously.
And to further complicate the situation, the debate was to take up – stretching it quite a little – probably no more that 10-12 minutes of the evening’s program.
So, the first challenge was to create a viable debate script.
After carefully studying the mood and facts of the election of 1892, the key ideas of the graduated (progressive) income tax issue were identified, and a script began to take shape.
Early on, we decided that we needed a moderator for the debate. So we turned to a natural, Judge William Caisley.
And given that both Wally and I enjoy good humor, we decided to try to inject a little in the debate script.
Wally was a member of the Political Science Department at Illinois State University (ISU), so we dubbed him “Wadley Whistleblower.”
And since I was a member of the ISU Mathematics Department, my moniker was “Pervis Polynomial.”
And Bill Caisley was none other than “Judge Felix Fairshake.”
It wasn’t easy, but the script evolved, and became reality.
(Read the script to find out what we felt the important issues were.)
The second challenge was memorizing my script.
I felt it important to “know my part by heart” and I quickly found out that I simply didn’t memorize things as quickly now as I did when I was in high school plays. And I wasn’t nearly as confident that I wouldn’t forget it.
And here’s where I wished I could have talked with Maggie and Bernie.
The Debate Itself
The format of the debate was to have an introduction by the Moderator, an introductory argument by both the Affirmative and Negative, followed by a rebuttal statement by both the Affirmative and Negative, ending with a concluding statement by the Moderator.
Relying on Judy Brown’s well-stocked basement wardrobe, we acquired a hat, vest, and waistcoat from the 1890 era for Wadley and Pervis. Judge Fairshake wore a hat and one of his judicial robes.
And Wadley and Pervis both wore a “Spack-Stash,” an artificial mustache that Advocate Bro-Menn Medical Center had passed out at an ISU football game coached by mustached Brock Spack to commemorate male wellness month.
At the appointed time, we mustered up our best 1892 manner and the illustrious debate began!
Wadley and Pervis were not experienced debaters, but by all accounts they accomplished their purpose, and I think the audience was informed and entertained by it.
Check out this 13 minute video of the debate to see what transpired:
The Moral of the Story
Aesop said “Adventure is worthwhile.”
I considered doing this debate an adventure. As such, it wasn’t unlike other types of adventures.
It involved planning and work, facing unexpected situations, taking risks, occasional frustration, and it produced a surprising degree of fun and personal satisfaction.
And it was a learning and growth experience. It was worthwhile.
But I didn’t enter into the debate/adventure lightly. When first asked, my little squelcher demons leaped into action.
There was “inherited reticence,” dancing in my mind with “fondness for comfortableness.” And playing the music was “reluctance to do something new” accompanied by “can you really do it?”
And these devious squelchers might have won out if it hadn’t been that I sensed again the spirit of people like Maggie and Bernie.
So if there is a moral to this little story, it would involve extolling the virtue of forgetting how old you are, and jumping at the chance to put all your effort into doing something new to you.
If it makes a tremendous difference to society, all the better. But even if it doesn’t—take the leap and engage in an adventure you haven’t had before. It’ll do you good.
I may be naïve, but I don’t think the “Maggies and Bernies” of this world are doing what they are doing mostly for the money.
I think they do it because have learned the value of new adventure for their own well-being.
And, no doubt, they also want to make a difference.
Thanks to being captivated by the spirit of “Maggies and Bernies,” I had a great time with the debate. I think Wally did too.
Eric ODaffer
Nice work, Pervis! On the debate and the blog post.