Disconnect | We have made politics part of our identity, which crowds out the “diversity of thought” we claim to champion.
Written by Zaid Alsubaiei 15 minutes ago Credit: Insia Haque
“Who will you vote for?” This is perhaps the most insidious and unintelligent question often asked in modern political culture. The motive behind it is often not genuine curiosity or an intellectual desire to engage in civil discussion and debate, but rather the classification of others into one of two ludicrous categories: A madman who wants to destroy or a radical liberal who believes the baby has potential is “aborted” after birth.
It’s no secret that American politics has become increasingly polarized over the past few decades. However, the ideological divide between members of the two-party system has become so wide that many voters support foreign enemies over their fellow citizens. The environment in which Americans interact with the system of government has evolved from questions of policy to questions of character, leading to personal attacks on opponents and turning politics into the bloody sport it is today. I’m changing it to a fruit.
I mention this not because I’m an eccentric political science major who interned at the New York Times and speaks, eats, and breathes Penn in Washington. Rather, I am providing such context because we, as a university community, conform in some way to one of these ideological tribes, and it is difficult to agree with their ideas, even if subtly. This is because they have decided that the opinions of those with whom they disagree will take precedence, regardless of their differences.
Lucy Fu, who graduated from the university in 2020, argued in a 2018 opinion piece: “One of the main reasons we like diversity of thought is that through the means of debate we can achieve the ultimate goal of better social outcomes…Perhaps restricting conservative viewpoints is a “It’s about perpetuating traditionally strong voices and giving voice to those who have been historically silenced.” ”
And it is this very idea that I have a problem with. Because while we claim to be champions of “diversity” and all the buzzwords that come with it, we also say that “diversity means the voices we deem worthy.” Because there is. “When it comes to issues of minority rights, perhaps a one-sided conversation will ensure better social outcomes.” And who decides which side will bring about such an outcome? Who said that what the group considers to be better is actually better? Those who subscribe to that group’s ideology? We seek to acknowledge underrepresented voices by actively limiting conservative perspectives, which are traditionally only voiced by stronger voices (i.e., white men). Do you think it is? Please give me a break.
This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t delegitimize minority voices or that you should walk around holding up signs shouting “white lives matter” (your arms get tired quickly). . On the contrary, every voice matters, and that’s what I want to emphasize. Every voice matters.
By favoring the views we deem worthy and limiting those we disagree with, we only repeat the mistakes of history. Moreover, by still discriminating on the basis of race and ethnic background, we further distance ourselves from the equity we cherish (racial minorities are underrepresented and undeserving). , whereas being underrepresented as white or male is dangerous for better social outcomes). Isn’t equality a bit too simple?
The clear lesson from the 2016 presidential election is that you can’t shut down half the country and expect it to not feel the effects. But perhaps the deeper truth lies in how we divided ourselves in half in the first place. When discussing politics, you often hear the phrase “political spectrum.” This means pinpointing your political leanings based on your opinions and abstract gradients. But isn’t that just a social construct that reduces us to thoughtless stooges serving Republican and Democratic masters?
Social structures assume that our ideas are homogeneous and can fit across a spectrum, and that our concepts about abortion, gun rights, or education should fit into certain patterns. I am. But when you ask around, you rarely find anyone who fits exactly the mold proposed by the so-called political spectrum. Abortion is a perfect example. Do you know how many people are in favor of a complete ban on abortion? How many people do you know who want an abortion the day before birth? How many of each are for relaxing gun laws? ?What about education?
Sign up for newsletter
Get our newsletter DP Daybreak delivered to your inbox every weekday morning.
What I am saying is that diversity of opinion does not come from political parties or groups, but from individuals. This assumption of different political views is simply a ploy used by politicians to divide the American people so they can favor votes for high office. It doesn’t exist.
It’s important to understand that I’m not writing this to promote hatred or lead to pointless, never-ending debate. My goal is that as students of higher education and as citizens of a country that strives toward the ideal and self-evident truth that “all men are created equal,” we must accept flowery language and broken words. Ultimately, we emphasize that we have a responsibility to think beyond our promises. of politicians. We have a responsibility not to take their word for it or blindly buy into their propaganda that demonizes our fellow citizens. And most of all, we know that the political spectrum is nothing more than a device to divide us and that even after all the arguments, we can still live in peace and respect with each other. We have a responsibility to acknowledge that.
ZAID ALSUBAIEI is a second-year university student studying economics from Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia. His email address is zaidsub@sas.upenn.edu.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures the future of strong journalism at Penn.
donate
Source link
