Former California congressman discussed a variety of issues during his lecture, and he provided not just opinions but also solutions. For instance, he enumerated several reasons why people tend to distrust the government at all levels, and then explained how those issues could be solved; U.S. involvement in the Middle East could have been solved by putting Saddam Hussein on trial, recapitalization of banks like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could have been avoided by buying the “toxic” assets, and the healthcare issue could be resolved by covering pre-existing conditions and making competition for insurance companies.

            Campbell was very clear about what he supports and opposes, and what his values are. He opposes legislator term limits, listing it as part of a combination leading to distrust of government because it leads to less time to build confidence in the public. He believes in having “only so much government as you need,” and would like to keep resources at state level rather than in local hands. He is pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion, against illegal immigration, and very passionate about education and access to higher education (for instance, he would provide Cal Grants and raise tuition at the same rate). Additionally, he informed the audience that he was voted by a taxpayers’ association to be the least likely to spend money. As an economics professor, he believes in having money before spending it; for instance, he advocates establishing methods of funding and supporting initiatives before passing them. With that said, he also isn’t afraid to charge taxes or fees, such as tolls on bridges and roads.

            Overall, Campbell believes that if he served as governor of California, the state would end up being well-educated, “greener,” and full of “open-doors” and equal opportunities.

As someone passionate about education at all levels, I am in agreement with Campbell’s support of K-12 education (and am confident in the strength of his support considering his experience as a college professor). I also agree that there must be funds to back up programs and services, so as to avoid overspending. With that, I understand that fees must be enforced in order to provide certain community components; therefore, I think it’s better to increase tuition and even impose taxes and fees if it decreases debts and makes it possible to have more services. However, that doesn’t mean that administrators should be able to do what they like with the money that students and others pay. It doesn’t make sense that we pay more in fees but we end up with lower-quality student services and fewer classes due to furloughs. Therefore, I agree with Campbell that there should be more staff, such as trustees, at lower levels to prevent such things from happening.

            Overall, Campbell’s approach seems very logical. It would be hard to fault him on anything he said during the lecture because the statements simply made a lot of sense. For instance, he explained that he wouldn’t place a tax on such items as alcohol and tobacco – though he is not exactly against taxing in general – because you “shouldn’t base revenue on something you hope to eliminate.” Even I was impressed because Campbell did not seem to look too far into the future without regard to the past. He compared the war in Iraq with the Vietnam War, mentioning the lessons that should have been learned from the latter event. He used revenue and spending figures from previous years to illustrate his ideas for the state’s future.

            I only worry that Campbell will be able to understand the positions of the diverse California constituents, considering that he is a Caucasian male who has attended Harvard and taught at various prestigious universities. Nonetheless, he’s right that many people are concerned primarily about jobs and money at the current moment, and he’ll need to work around that.