During an election, it can sometimes seem as if nothing is more important than the victory of one's preferred candidate. For intensely passionate supporters, criticism of one's favorite must be refuted immediately, and any advantages for their opponent must be debunked as exaggerated or outright false. When the stakes are high and there are only two parties, it becomes difficult for politically active individuals to avoid falling into an "us versus them" mentality which demands full, unqualified support for your lesser evil. In its most unfortunate incarnation, this structure can lead to the silencing of dissenters who are attempting to earnestly criticize a weakness in their preferred candidate's platform. Any negative comments, it could be said, will be giving ammunition to the enemy. Though the desire to unify camps is understandable, it is important that open and necessary debate does not get squelched for some perceived short-term political gain which is, invariably, not worth the cost.
This is not a problem which exclusively affects liberals, conservatives or any other politically active group. The "tribal" mindset, where protecting group members takes a priority over anything else, is a side effect of the human condition and can manifest in people regardless of their ideology or education. This comes into conflict with the ideal purpose of a presidential election, which is to do what is best for the country, and not one's party. When James Madison wrote about the importance of safeguarding the Union against factions in Federalist 10, he wanted to prevent large groups in society from taking away the rights of others. While it is not a clear infringement of the freedom of expression, demanding that minority members of a "tribe" silence themselves until after an election does harm everyone involved. There is a strategic rationale for withholding dissent for your party during election season, but asking for a pause on free criticism is asking too much.
It is not bold to say that neither of the two parties in the United States are correct about everything. Both suffer from serious problems and even disconnects in opinion from the majority of their supporters. For instance, President Obama's continued acceptance of raids on medical marijuana dispensaries stands in contrast to a 77 percent national approval rating for medicinal use of marijuana. Because of people's reluctance to listen to their opponents' supporters during elections, there is no one more capable of helping point out their candidates' flaws than a potential supporter. This benefit goes away, though, when criticism from political allies is viewed as an attack.
There is still the distinction to be made between substantive criticisms against candidates from one's party and those made for the purpose of "scoring points" against an opponent. The latter variety often take the form of fake outrage, something which Republicans have already successfully employed this year. That said, it is possible Democrats are even guiltier of silencing dissenting voices within their ranks - a bad sign for the self-styled liberals. In Pakistan, Obama has allowed the use of "signature strikes" against suspected militants, where the identities of missile victims are not known but people are targeted based on "suspicious" behavior. His top military advisors are now considering expanding this power to the drone-plagued nation of Yemen. As we get closer to the election, a liberal critic of the president could be told by fellow Democrats, "Oh, so you'd rather have Mitt Romney bombing civilians in Yemen?"
Substance is ignored, and every self-criticism is seen as the potential "domino" which could fall over and destroy the party from inside. Honest questions - such as whether or not indiscriminate bombings inspire more terrorists than they kill - are dismissed out of hand, or told to wait until after the election. After the election, of course, there will be less pressures on the president to act one way or another. While those who seek the end of criticism against their party justify this in terms of electoral politics, they overlook the potential benefits of pushing an important issue before moderates and the politically uninvolved during an election. If something is worth saying, then surely it is best said when everyone is paying attention.
Criticism of a candidate's weaknesses should not be silenced simply because it seems like it may help an enemy. Generally, politicians can only be made stronger if they face some serious challenges from their friends before dealing with the attacks from their opponents. The brave German political theorist Rosa Luxemburg was alleged to have said, "Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters." The spirit of these words holds true, and we alone are the guarantors of our freedom. We must protest where we see it necessary, and patiently listen to substantive criticism which could ultimately better the nation. Lastly, consider one thing: If speaking the truth will cost your favorite politician greatly, then perhaps it is time to ask yourself what makes him so worthy of your support.
Sam Carrigan's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at s.carrigan@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: Girl, what did you expect?
By Cecy Juárez | 2 hours agoAdvocate for yourself unabashedly, even and especially when you feel like you don’t belong.
PARTING SHOT: Revisiting old comments
By Claire DiLorenzo | 2 hours agoIn retirement, I am also trying not to be hard on myself — I don’t have to hold onto all the mistakes that I made as an editor.
PARTING SHOT: Prides and joys
By Shaleah Tolliver | YesterdayI have seen what student journalism can do — it can highlight the marginalized, influence the majority and spark conversations.
