THE FRUSTRATED student finally was able to sum up his argument quite succinctly, if not eloquently: "I just hate Gore. He is a big liar." Another student had this to say about the upcoming election, "I do not see how anyone could possibly vote for Bush. You would have to be close-minded and certifiably insane."
While many like to belabor the accepted maxim of ubiquitous student apathy, there still remain many students here at the University who are passionate about their politics. After observing and participating in numerous political debates about the upcoming presidential election over the last couple weeks, what stands out is the tone and nature many of these discussions possess. And it is more disturbing than mere apathy.
Arguing about politics can be a fun thing. There are many here who would rather do nothing else. Even the use of the word "arguing," however, reveals something about our generation's concept of political discourse. When we talk about politics it is much more interesting to focus on the differences and to get in each other's faces about it instead of searching for common ground.
This is completely consistent with national interpretations of politics. The first question after the presidential debates is inevitably, "Who won?" not "Was any progress made on the issues?" The way newspapers report new polls daily as if "Gore" and "Bush" merely are competitive sports teams, battling out over the regular season now, and heading into the Super Bowl in November, which will crown the world champion.
Competition is inherent in politics, but when that mode of thinking begins to seep down and dominate even our own personal political discussions, something is wrong. When a group of University students mixed with liberal and conservative affiliates begins arguing about an issue, it is only natural for the competitive juices to flow. It is sad and unfortunate, though, when the purpose of the engagement becomes merely winning instead of pursuing truth.
We need to move away from attacks and move towards a more respectful dialogue in our political debates. When the issue of the presidential election is raised it would be incredibly refreshing to hear more questions posed than answers asserted.
One of the reasons politics is so fascinating is that many of the issues are complex and multi-faceted to the point that very intelligent people can hold absolutely opposed positions. It is disappointing that many of us here at the University already have pledged allegiance to a certain party or ideology and thus feel a lazy justification in shutting off our critical faculties. If you decide who you are voting for without having had to defend those views in a constructive dialogue, you are short-changing yourself.
How many students here are from Southern, so-called "Christian" homes and will vote conservative merely because of it? How many are children of ex-hippie parents who proudly bear the legacy of that liberalism without actually giving it a deep analysis?
The most disturbing aspect of these students in their political debates is their manner. Which is worse, the pseudo-intellectual snobbish condescension of the liberals or the self-righteous moralizing of the conservatives?
Yes, conservatives, there are people who are deeply moral and who truly want the best for our country who will vote for Gore.
Yes, liberals, there are very intelligent people in this country who feel that Bush will make the best president out of the given options.
It is saddening to see a person become a label, and to see otherwise able critical thinkers becoming rude and close-minded when entering into the realm of politics.
There is no absolute answer. Government is not a mathematical equation and there is not a person out there who can prove without a doubt who the better president will be.
This should give us all a certain degree of humility when entering into debates that are as idealistic and impassioned as those about politics can be. It should help us think about talking to each other instead of past each other, about trying to move together in a constructive way towards a better vision.
Political debate is certainly an important part of being a citizen. It is important to truly consider other viewpoints and to defend our own. While we engage in such discussions, however, we need to shun sophomoric gamesmanship and winner-take-all mentalities in order to realize that we are all in this political mess together, as citizens and human beings. The least we can do is treat each other - and yes, even the candidates - with some respect and dignity.
(Luke Godwin is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.)
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 22 hours agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
