Julia McCarthy: LA County supervisor candidates miss opportunity to cater to students

Working for a political campaign this summer was equal parts humorous, challenging and incredibly rewarding. Think “Parks and Recreation,” combined with “The Office” and “The West Wing.”

That’s how I found myself at the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors debate earlier this month. I went into the debate with the hopes of finding a candidate whose campaign I could see myself getting involved with, so I could later recreate my experience from the summer.

The debate, hosted at UCLA in the Freud Playhouse in Macgowan Hall, was the first of several debates between Sheila Kuehl and Bobby Shriver, the two Democratic candidates running for the position of supervisor. It was centered on two topics: transportation and economic development in L.A. County.

Now I realize this isn’t “The Bachelorette,” and that the purpose of the debate wasn’t to cater to my desires and provide me with an ideal candidate, but nonetheless, I expected more from both politicians. They didn’t have to sweep me off my feet; they just had to be people I could see myself supporting.

The setting, a college campus, served as the perfect opportunity for both candidates to reach out to student voters and turn them into student volunteers.

But Kuehl, a former member of the California State Senate and the California Assembly, and Shriver, a former member of the Santa Monica City Council, berated each other throughout the debate, constantly harking back to the issue of differing work histories and experiences.

“Being on a city council is a wonderful thing even if you do it part time every other Tuesday,” Kuehl said sarcastically.

Shriver not only mirrored Kuehl’s cattiness, he often one-upped her in his numerous references to Kuehl’s supposed disconnectedness to Los Angeles.

Shriver portrayed Kuehl as a Sacramento insider totally unaware of how local politics operate, noting during the debate, “I think it’s important to recognize that this office is a nonpartisan office, so the scoring of political points … as is frequently done in Sacramento … doesn’t make sense here.”

Given the level of childish insult-throwing that took place over the course of the hour-and-a-half program, I can’t imagine many students being compelled to go fill out a volunteer sheet after the debate ended.

And that’s particularly unfortunate because the central issues discussed, transportation and the economy, are definitely on students’ radars when looking toward graduation and the future. Overshadowing these issues with mere name-calling is a pity and a missed opportunity by both campaigns.

I would have much rather learnt how Shriver plans on improving transit lines, and how Kuehl would bring more jobs to Los Angeles County, than to have witnessed the show they put on, each hoping to draw more laughs at their opponent’s expense.

Now, to be sure, most political debates devolve into this same back-and-forth rally of insults and tossing out endorsements that I witnessed at the debate.

But the fact that it was hosted at UCLA, which could have served as a valuable opportunity to attract potential student voters (and student volunteers), seemed to be forgotten by both candidates.

Replacing some of the sarcasm with more substantive policy discussion would have been beneficial to not only prospective voters, but also the candidates themselves.

Neither is probably concerned with losing Democratic voters, but they should be concerned with losing student voters, and as a result, student volunteers.

As for now, though, neither Kuehl nor Shriver has my vote.