The second presidential debate at nearby Belmont University Tuesday evening brought considerable attention to Nashville for the second time in less than a week. Not long after the national sports media jettisoned home after last weekend’s fantastic football victory at Dudley Field did the national political media descend on the greater Nashville area to cover the debate.
The benefits of the national attention for Belmont are obvious. The small, regionally known school has been and will continue to use the debate as a platform for promoting itself. Once known as a private, religiously affiliated university, Belmont can market itself as an institution with high academic standards attuned to national current events.
The benefits for Vanderbilt University are less obvious, but they are certainly substantial. Few students may realize that Vanderbilt and the Nashville-Davidson County government issued a joint bid for the debate, eventually losing out to Belmont. The university, however, has still gained from the debate’s proximity.
The third-party candidates’ debate and the “This Is What Women Want” speak-out, both on Vanderbilt’s campus, took advantage of the advance interest in the Belmont debate in order to allow alternative voices to be heard on important issues.
More important, however, was the panel held at the First Amendment Center on Peabody campus. While classes were canceled across Wedgewood Avenue at Belmont, Vanderbilt students and other community members were given the chance to hear an all-star panel of media figures discussing the debate and the election. With names like Chris Matthews, Howard Fineman, Mark Halperin and our own John Geer, the panel provided our community with an amazing opportunity to engage in discussion.
The city of Nashville benefited greatly from the influx of political and media types. These campaign workers, newspaper and television reporters, and activists pumped a great deal of money into the local economy. Bars, restaurants, shops and other businesses probably received a much-needed boost, and while that boost may be short-lived, the exposure our city received will not be.
Overall, the Belmont debate gave Vanderbilt students a tangible reason to discuss and research the issues of this important election. This may be the most lasting effect of what was otherwise a boring and unproductive debate. Students who may not have had much interest in the political process now have more awareness of the issues and the election.
Across campus, from the Commons to Sarratt Student Center, discussions among students have arisen. These discussions can provide a chance to gain more knowledge of the issues and improve the ability for students to make wise and careful decisions on voting day next month.
