The first Presidential Debate is slated for Oct. 3, at the University of Denver.

In the Observer at Boston College, student David Schlosser states his wish that the upcoming events underscore the differences between the two candidates.

At this point in the race—after the conventions but before the debates—two things seem fairly clear. Firstly, governor Romney’s campaign is far too passive. Secondly, both campaigns are avoiding policy discussions in a way that leaves us—the voters—worse off. If Mitt Romney is to have a chance to win, he must give voters a choice, not an echo.

In a broad sense, the Romney camp has adopted the campaign strategy of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, the first election after the beginning of the Great Depression. Because of the extreme unpopularity of the incumbent, Roosevelt avoided discussing what would become one of the greatest policy shifts in U.S. history, the New Deal, and instead focused his campaign around the fact that he was not named “Hoover”.

Romney, on the other hand, will have no such luck. His convention speech largely avoided policy specifics and focused on his life story. This simply won’t work. While the economy is by no means “good”, it’s not at the level of the Great Depression either. President Obama remains somewhat popular. After a convention based mostly around vague, inspirational fluff, the democratic incumbent gained—for a few days at least—a slight lead in the polls. Unless the situation in the Middle East worsens (which may indeed happen) or the economy crashes, a boring, substance-free campaign will probably lead to an Obama victory, albeit by somewhat slimmer margins than the one in 2008. To win, Romney must stress that this election is actually about something.

More to the point, the Romney campaign making the election about something of substance would be good for the country. In a healthy democracy, elections should come down to important issues that affect the electorate. The upcoming debates should focus on the two party’s differing stances on the role of government in a free society and the size and ends of the welfare state. These are the questions that should enter voters’ minds come November. If, instead, voters see the election as “Team Red vs. Team Blue”, or “the Hope and Change Guy vs. Rich Mormon Guy”, Romney may lose or Obama may lose, but more importantly, we all will lose.

Schlosser should be pleased with the 47% vs “Redistributionist” discussions.