Gay marriage. Abortion. Iraq. Employment. Economics. In the whirlwind of the past few months, these issues have acted like a river cutting through the country's heartland. They sweep along with broad, decisive strokes, forcing the public to swim to the Red bank or the Blue through the mass of talking heads, politicos and antagonistic protesters. Those already on the banks chant and cheer, their voices drowning out the few remainders being carried downstream. And so our country is divided, 51 to 48, loudly and supposedly irreconcilably.
There is a great tendency in American society to keep things simple. We define our great debates in twos: Pro-Choice and Pro-Life; Pro-War and Anti-War; Liberal and Conservative; Red and Blue. Easy to understand and easy to support because you can counter any contrary opinion with a dismissive, "Oh, you're one of them." Unfortunately, this also leads to caricatures of both the issues and the candidates. The Elitist, Bleeding-Heart Liberal and the Arrogant, Evangelical Republican. But the people running our country are human beings. The people who disagree with those officials, passively or vehemently, are human beings. They have emotions, they are fallible, and chances are, they care very deeply about the issues.
Too often we forget this. We shout as loudly as possible from a pulpit of moral superiority to stop opposing beliefs from reaching our ears, or adopt a smug grin and walk away. Too often we forget that "they" are also people, and that "we" are fallible and far from omniscient.
My point is this: It is easy to make generalizations and proclaim we know the path of righteousness. Liberals and conservatives are equally guilty of it, and I am sad to say that a good portion of the American population goes along willingly. Far harder is acknowledging that the facts are not in, perhaps never will be, and that situations may arise for which there is no right answer. That in those situations, the most we can try for is not "the only right course," but "the best given the circumstances." If we are to truly have a clear conscience, we must challenge ourselves (and those who listen to us) to be empathetic and informed. We must avoid falling into ideological traps and instead strive to maintain open, honest debate.
It is for this reason that I must voice protest to Mr. Fantegrossi's gross generalizations in "A Birth of Two New Parties," published in this newspaper Nov. 8. Some of his points were well-made and thoughtful. Some, unfortunately, were not. Take Mr. Fantegrossi's accusations that the Democrats are now a party of "people so rich they do not care about taxes, and people who are so poor that they will sacrifice their kid's meal for a bowl of pot." Just as I would express contempt for a liberal writer saying (non-satirically) that all Republicans wanted to institute a Bible-thumping police state, I find this statement reprehensible. Forgive my bluntness, but I was not aware 48 percent of the voting population is bourgeois and regularly consumes illegal substances. Perhaps it was meant as a joke, but if so, it was in poor taste.
I am also dismayed at his evaluation that "times have changed" so much that he has "yet to see someone, anyone, on this bottom end who legitimately worked hard to find a high-paying job and couldn't find it." Has he volunteered in Anacostia's schools recently? Really talked to those people at the bottom end of the Green Line, gotten to know them on a first-name basis? I readily admit, with some shame, that I myself have not. And not having done so, I refuse to level so broad an accusation against them. I am all for personal responsibility, but I am also well aware of the benefits afforded me as a college student - readily available student loans, new and clean clothes for a job interview, and 20 years of encouraging parents, to name a few. And I wonder how well I would fare if I was denied them. I agree that the government cannot subsidize people's entire lives, but I find it very difficult to say that absolutely anyone in this country can become wealthy and live in a suburb off gumption alone.
Finally, there was the statement that "a massive number of people [wasted] their potential time at work to protest George W. Bush." By the context I take it you mean low-income workers. What, precisely, is wrong with anyone taking time to protest policies they disagree with, low-income or not? I am far from a radical liberal, but I take pride that I acted upon my beliefs in January of 2003 and marched through the streets of our capital to state opposition to a war in Iraq (I might also add, contrary to Mr. Fantegrossi's generalizations, that I am not a drug trafficker despite my protesting, nor do I have blue hair). Around this time, I also remember Republicans protesting outside France's embassy when that country expressed opposition to the war. Good for them! Protesting and campaigning are valuable to a democracy, and I would not demean those who give their all to make this country better for it.
Though the media play this election as a great divide, the supporters' hard work in this race unites them, conservative, liberal and moderate. My hope is that we can remember these common forces and refrain from relying upon stale, stereotypical mudslinging. That would form the birth of two new parties. Not blind ideological insults, but informed, intellectual debate.
Christopher J. Kosek is a junior in the School of Public Affairs and School of Communication.
