Drinking and thinking
In the wake of Newt Gingrich
"Hell, if we're old enough to die for our country, we're old enough to kill ourselves by drinking!" So said some students when discussing alcohol consumption.
This may be true; however, one hopes that we're also old enough to make the choice not to poison ourselves by overdosing on these beverages. One of the main points of having a particular age when it's legal to drink is to try to reduce the potential harm done by drinking excessively. It's somewhat parallel to the idea of a legal age to drive; if every thirteen- year old was escorted into the teen years with a smile and a set of keys, automobile fatalities would sky-rocket.
Realistically, few college students abstain from drinking. Whether they choose to have an occasional micro-brew with their friends or a chugging contest with their buds, most students will imbibe at least a time or two in their Oberlin tenure. The important point here is how to make this experience the least risky. Obviously, much like sex, the only 100 percent safe way to drink is to not do it at all. If you decide not to maintain your alcohol virginity, lose it safely; think quality, not quantity.
And why is it that alcohol is such an intrinsic part of the college experience? Why do some of us feel like we have to "get happy" to be happy? Is it just an amplification of our present emotions that drinking brings out? Do we use booze to loosen up, to get out of ourselves, forget about classes, have an excuse/ the lowered inhibitions to seranade that girl or smootch that boy? If it takes altered blood chemistry to bring us to an action, is it a truly valid action? And when you do something you regret and blame it on the brew, who are you fooling?
Or is this essay trying to make a big deal out of something that is a normal rite of passage, often seen as a right of passage? Drinking can be a fun release of tension, but it can easily become something to add even more stress to our lives. Don't let drinking be an excuse not to think.
The 1998 elections demonstrated a shift of power toward the Democrats, and in so doing, spelled out the demise of the Republican chieftain Newt Gingrich. This shake-up has gone largely unnoticed by a large segment of the Oberlin students. The loss of one of Washington's most influential denizens has an important effect on the political climate of America in the near future. Republican gain of control in 1994 signaled the ascendance of conservative power in Washington. Ralph Reed, Rush Limbaugh and Newt loomed ominously over the horizon as the poster boys of the GOP. Yet, just four years later, Republicans are fumbling to maintain a majority in Congress and to find a direction for the party. All this in response to the shellacking of hard-core conservative candidates last week.
However, this is not all good news for the Democratic party. In losing Gingrich, the President and House Democrats lose their whipping boy, who has been blamed for any number of transgressions, from the shutdown of Washington, to the impeachment proceedings. Newt's fall similarly leaves the Republicans in a precarious situation.
Louisiana Representative Bob Livingston, chair of the Appropriations Committee is soon to assume the speaker's chair. Livingston is charged with the responsibility of guiding the Republican party and also dictating the publicity of the impeachment proceedings. In this, he has already taken a different stand than his successor, approaching the matter very cautiously. Newt's last minute decision to push the scandal in Republican campaign ads was a disastrous miscalculation of the ex-speaker and not something his successor wishes to repeat.
Livingston himself is not beyond reproach. His rise to the speaker position was bought through a personal PAC he developed to fund Republican candidates. Though not illegal, he utilized a number of loopholes in the campaign finance laws to further his campaign for the speaker position.
Is the American polity better off with Newt gone from the speaker's chair? Only time will tell. Despite his shortcomings he was a strong ally in Clinton's foreign policy maneuvers as well as a strong leader of the Republican party. Whether either of these can be considered as positives, it cannot be doubted that Newt has been an eminently interesting figure of American politics in the last four years. His apparent lack of tact always gave a sense of knowing his position, while also giving some good laughs, such as his comments on women's role in warfare.
Since the Gingrich orchestrated rise to power of the Republican right in 1994, giving the Republicans the majority in Congress for the first time in four decades, American politics has seen partisanship raised to new levels. This is ultimately the legacy to be left by ex-speaker Newton Leroy Gingrich. Newt is not gone from the American political landscape; however, to paraphrase another prominent Republican, "We just won't have him to kick around any more."
Copyright © 1998, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 127, Number 9, November 13, 1998
Contact us with your comments and suggestions.