The College Fix

Last week, House Republicans released their Pledge to America. I had been looking forward to this document since I heard of its imminent release a month or so ago. Finally — an opportunity for the minority party to both articulate policy specifics and affirm the core principles on which those policies are built.

No such luck.

I’d been hoping for something similar to Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan’s Roadmap for America’s Future, but got something bearing remarkable resemblance to the Contract with America — but this time with pretty pictures.

To quote my favorite, recently returned actress: “Blurg.” (Tina Fey — “30 Rock”)

I was expecting substance. I was crossing my fingers for a detailed plan that would actually show how Congressional Republicans could close the deficit and start paying down our national debt. I was hoping against hope that it wouldn’t consist entirely of sound-bite politics or catch-phrase economics. But it’s all “cut taxes and cut spending,” providing yet another example of politicians pushing a simple solution to fix a complicated problem.

Reading the proposal (or lack thereof) reminded me of a more local concern, the 21-ordinance — the legislation that bars those under 21 from bars. Now nearly four months since it was first implemented, the ordinance is a classic example of a simple, single solution to an extraordinarily complicated problem.

“21 Makes Sense” isn’t an argument. It’s a sound bite.

And the 21-ordinance isn’t a well thought-out attempt to address our town’s dangerous drinking culture. It’s a simple solution. Like “more tax cuts,” it is an attempt to make a multifaceted issue simple. Unlike “more tax cuts,” it appears to be working for the moment.

Ultimately, however, it will fail. There are simply too many factors it fails to take into account.

I’m opposed to the 21-only ordinance not because I think it’s paternalistic, unnecessary, or that our city councilors are trying to prevent me from having a good time. I just don’t think it can possibly be effective.

It’s like trying to conduct open-heart surgery with a sledgehammer.

As somebody who grew up in Iowa City, I want to see the drinking culture change. I’ve been hearing about it since I was in elementary school. I remember reading about the alcohol-fueled beatdowns and frequent sexual assaults. I remember Curtis Fry.

Nobody is contending that it isn’t a problem. But it seems unlikely that one sweeping solution could possibly be effective in curtailing the most dangerous elements of Iowa City’s drinking culture. Like our national debt, said culture is the result of many, many factors, none of which can be addressed in one swoop.

Yet, like the Republicans in Congress with their “Pledge,” our local politicians are trying to do exactly that.

And like the failed policies of “cut taxes and cut spending,” there should be no doubt that unless the 21-only ordinance is altered, supplemented, or significantly revised, it will ultimately prove unsuccessful in its aims.

A great number of focused, intricate, tested proposals have graced the Daily Iowan Opinions page on the subject. Among the factors that need to be addressed are: irresponsible bartenders, a dry campus, ridiculously affordable drink specials, a high concentration of bars, the propensity of UI students to binge drink, and the easy accessibility of alcohol. And all of this is topped off by an essentially federally mandated drinking age.

So come November, we’ll see if the 21-ordinance has really been the end-all, be-all that its proponents have made it out to be.

(A DI story earlier this week about reduced ambulance visits to downtown suggests it’s working.) Regardless — and this goes for Yes to Entertaining Students Safely as well — please spare us the sound-bite politics.

It’s insulting. To all of us.

Zach Wahls is a columnist for the Daily Iowan and a sophomore at the University of Iowa. He is a contributor to the SFPA.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter