Monday, April 18, 2005

For what it's worth.

Several correspondents have asked me which candidate I back for this year's Student Assembly president, and I've been more than content to keep my hands out of this. As I commented on the yawping last time around:

For a government that manages to be at once self-important and utterly irrelevant, the elections for the most part amounted to an unpopularity contest for Dartmouth's least-representative representatives.

Just so. And frankly I'd conclude that things have worsened, if that's humanly possible. The clutch of over-motivated careerists who dominate the S.A. go gamboling off with some eighty-grand of campus dues--that's more than most Americans earn a year, I'd add--and then devotes weeks to fantastically petty in-fighting over top-secret e-mail terminals. Come on.

But, for what it's worth,--I'd call Paul Heintz this year. In a most salient qualification, he's not associated with the S.A. Amazingly, this has led to the main violence of his opponents: he's not acceptable because he's never gotten bogged down in the S.A. tar-pits. So far as I'm concerned this is the precondition of a successful presidency. Who here remembers Molly B. Stutzman, the original campus celeb--

I don't think Heintz and I agree on a lick of politics; luckily, he's not standing for an actual political office. What's the worst he could do? Left-liberal programming on the new flat-screen monitors that are soon to replace our hopelessly old-fashioned bulletin-boards?

And there is more to life, thankfully, than just opinions. I know Heintz rather well and though we've often disagreed on much, I've always found him to be genial and gregarious, bright and intense and never dull. He is clearly part of Dartmouth's thriving culture of ideas. On the matters important to the enduring vitality of the College, Heintz is spot-on. That's it, you know.


Anonymous said...

Just like The Review to seek out the laziest candidate who has never done anything and whose campaign has amounted to a poster with other people's ideas on it. He hasn't yet had an original plan for SA.
Heintz would be even less effective than Janos, who basically shut down the SA for two years of erratic nonsense. What a waste of everyone's time you propose.

Anonymous said...

"And you can write! Write for the op-ed page of The Dartmouth, or the leftward leaning Free Press. Or if you're one of those awkward, socially inept, pasty white kids from an intolerant upper class family and you like to make fun of minorities and Jews and pretend that you're a really sweet guy when you actually have lots of inner-anger problems that will constantly plague you until your worthless marriage falls apart and you have a mental breakdown in your mid-40s, I wholeheartedly encourage you to write for The Dartmouth Review. Really, they do a great job."
-Paul Heintz, The Dartmouth (9/13/04)

Anonymous said...

If anything, this quote only strengthens Joe's argument. If he's willing to back Heintz after that kind of tirade, it seems to increase his credibility. He was the editor in chief, after all.

He also linked to that quote in the post.

TO said...

"Shutting down the SA for 2 years" would be about the most useful thing anyone could do for it. It's always been a cesspool of the worst characters Dartmouth has had to offer, and a black hole into which the administration dumps $80M per year. If I were still an undergrad, I would vote for any candidate who proposed to move SA meetings to a leaky boat 200 miles into the Pacific Ocean, because that person would be doing us all a huge favor.

Janos is the only SA president in recent memory who hasn't contributed to the nonsense. Anyone who promises anything similar and seems able to deliver deserves support.