Any familiarity with Cornell’s aspiring student leaders quickly yields the impression that some of them are, in fact, crazy a-holes. Not all of them, mind you; just enough to lend the Student Assembly the air of an irrationally batty farce. It’s hard to think of another campus group with as much responsibility, yet as little clout in the court of public opinion. This year’s group of candidates has even owned up to as much, and it’s because the Assembly has traditionally lived down to our woefully low expectations.

In recent years, the members of the S.A. have fought to cut funding for popular programs, considered propositions like the right to carry firearms on campus and waged wars of words against mean JuicyCampus commenters. (Ladies and gentlemen, your student representatives!) Sure, potshots at the S.A. are easy to come by, but there’s pretty good reason for that.

Admittedly, the organization has come a long way. Back in the halcyon days of 2006, it was much easier to discern that the Assembly was basically full of crap. Critics far and wide lobbed accusations of extortion, cronyism and wholesale corruption, to an extent that dwarves current grievances with the governing body.

Credit where credit’s due, the S.A. has made a concerted effort to appear less absurd recently, most notably by finally amending its charter to allow for the direct election of President and Executive Vice President. Thanks for that, I guess.

Let’s not overstate matters, though. There’s still something to be said for my theory that the Assembly is, to this day, hamstrung by a dedicated caucus of libertarian fetishists, playing out tea-party fantasies in the Straight’s Memorial Room each Thursday evening. Any time the Cornell Republicans successfully hijack a general body meeting to advocate the right to bear arms; or a patently ridiculous First Amendment defense nearly derails an anti-discrimination resolution; or an Assembly member votes to sideswipe Cornell Cinema, not for any fault of its own, but out of an ideological objection to byline funding — and I have, in fact, heard that very point argued — then my disdain for the Assembly grows a little more pronounced.

But, what with the new election rules in place, there is always the potential for change. Which brings me to this year’s “change” candidate. Mr. Andrew Brokman ’11.

One look at his campaign literature is enough to tell you that Brokman is working the “change you can believe in” angle, and with the zeal of a crazy person: “[Assembly insiders] think I am outspoken, they think I am over-ambitious, they think I am going to run against one of their own for President — AND THEY’RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT,” says the front page of his web site (excruciatingly titled “BrokTheVote.com”). What’s more, he’s adorned the marquee placement on the web page with a snazzy, U2-scored campaign video. (Which might or might not equate him to a modern day Rosa Parks. Would that be a party foul?)

Overall, his platform, while nominally grounded in grand democratic gestures, is more than a little bit grating, and short on actual substance.

By contrast, his opponent, Vince Andrews ’11, goes for the more understated tone — while lambasting Brokman for a “loud and flashy campaign” — and focuses more on the specific issues, the salient details, the brass tacks or whatever. Still, he ends up coming off with a patrician vibe that plays right into his rival’s hand. The “beltway insider” label fits.

So, where do we stand? Tough to say, except for one detail that tips the balance — the insincerity factor. It goes something like this:

Brokman was only appointed to his current post on the Assembly three weeks ago, when Ola Williams ’10 — former at-large rep and executive VP — chose to relinquish his seat. Since Brokman was the first runner-up in the At-Large election last spring, the charter dictated he filled the spot.

Williams’ resignation came in the wake of an incendiary op-ed piece accusing the Assembly of insularity and corruption, pointing specifically to his violation of the S.A.’s attendance policies. And that’s all fine and well. Williams did in fact break the rules by accumulating more than the proscribed number of absences, so the appropriate outcome was reached.

At the same time, however, it behooves us to look to the author of said fiery indictment. Who was the Good Samaritan, concerned for the integrity of Cornell’s student government and ready to stand up against the powers-that-be? If the vague and fatuous platitudes weren’t a dead giveaway (“Thomas Jefferson, one of my personal heroes — and one hell of a legislator — once said: ‘Power is not alluring to pure minds.’”) it was none other than Andrew Brokman.

Given his much ballyhooed transparency platform, it is kind of ironic that Brokman neglected to disclose his own personal stake in Williams’ departure.

Brokman’s machinations could be considered a minor coup. After all, he was sworn into the Assembly within the last month — just in time to mount an election campaign for the governing body’s presidency. Which means, yes, he might technically qualify as an Assembly “outsider,” so to speak (if you want to parse words). But his tactics are vintage S.A — that is, sneaky and deceptively self-serving. And in retrospect, his whole transparency shtick feels just a weeee bit disingenuous.

That being the case, I’ll hold my nose and vote for Andrews this election, if only because he at least seems consistent. Then I’ll just have to hope the Assembly keeps taking baby steps away from what it, and its members, have traditionally done best: Which is — in the words of former Sun Associate Editor Dave Wittenberg ’09 — behaving like “backbiting, infighting, self-aggrandizing Tracy Flicks.”

Hope for the best, but prepare for the worse.

Peter Finocchiaro, a senior in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, is a former Arts and Entertainment Editor of The Sun. He may be reached at pfinocchiaro@cornellsun.com. Everyone Choose Sides typically appears alternate Tuesdays this semester.