At sea in the 21 debate
Like any good provocateur, I hate to see any good two-sided political controversy go down without a fair fight. Ergo, I am cooking up my own batch of opposition action committees to join the squabble over the sole issue that seems capable of inflaming passions these days: the 21-ordinance.
First, I'll roll out the more basic off-brand PAC renditions, created solely to cater to those (fleeting) few who have yet to dig in their boots on behalf of either side. If you don't want to side with 21 Makes Sense, the group funded by bigwig city residents that's working to keep 19- and 20-year-olds out of bars after 10 p.m., then you'll fit right in with 21 Makes Cents — a group for the older set (whom the ordinance doesn't particularly concern, anyway) who are just looking to cash in on the whole bottomless pit/vicious cycle aspect of the debate. As long as 21-only keeps rearing its ugly head every three years, there will always be an opportunity to stage public debates, build websites, write opinion columns, or even hold "fundraising" events at local bars.
To satisfy the contrarian category, I'll then found Yes to Engaging Students in Social Senselessness. This will be the group for the radical set, who in a concerted backlash against the pro-21 establishment, will do all in their powers to show bar owners, university and city officials, and EMS responders what real binge drinking looks like. All manner of debauchery, over-imbibing, reckless behavior, and texts you wish you hadn't actually sent will be lauded and (drunkenly) applauded among members of this committee. Needless to say, the group will have a considerable member retention problem, and any money raised will most likely be immediately emptied from its collective coffers.
Of course, we'll throw in a third-party contender for good measure; the group that rails against both pro- and anti-21 groups with equal disdain. BOOZI, or Bingeing on Over-Zealous Ideas, will serve solely to speak out against hackneyed talking points and worn-out drinking downtown alternatives, thus reducing both the incessant and rhetorical natures of the ordinance issue. However, despite raising awareness of the inanity, BOOZI will probably not garner the membership necessary to carry out any viable change and will be forgotten faster than the first tequila shot of the night.
Following in that same vein of acronym-fronted non-descript committees, no doubt some imitators will arise. For the fatalistics among us, I'll start up DRUNC — Debating Rationally on Under-21 is Not Conceivable — because between the deeply ingrained "culture of drinking," the preponderance of house parties and tailgating during the year, and inability of both 21 Makes Sense and Yes to Entertaining Students Safely to actually rebut the other side's concerns reasonably, some feel that there's just no way to make any progress in the city's attempts to "just say no."
But what's left for those still clinging to one last glimmer of hope for the overhaul of the 21-only ordinance? They are perfect for ICHUG, or Iowa City Hedonism for the Underage Generation, which prefers to turn a blind eye to illegal drinking in bars downtown in the hopes that successive classes of incoming freshmen will learn from their mistakes the hard way, sobering up as they progress through college. This group promotes the "school of hard knocks" ideology in cleaning up after one's own (morning-after) messes, and feels that alcoholism is an evolutionary adaptation designed to weed out the weak from the college species.
But no matter how many other controversial factions journey into the 21-only foray, nothing changes the all-too-real fact that both sides are thus far doing little to extend the metaphorical olive branch to proponents of the other side (or any side, for that matter). One committee is running a terribly inefficient campaign; the other, refusing to compromise on questions of musical entertainment at venues or make exceptions for those who can manage to frequent the bars without breaking state law. Perhaps when we stop holding out for the public vote to side completely with one staunch view of the 21-ordinance, we should make legitimate attempts to negotiate, listen, and make concessions not in the name of ending a dizzying debate but in practicing sober-minded, fool-proof democracy.
comments powered by Disqus
