In her opening statement to the vice presidential debates last Thursday, moderator Gwen Ifill (“Washington Week,” “The NewsHour” on PBS) told the camera, “The audience here in the hall has promised to remain very polite. No cheers, applause, or untoward outbursts…”
It’s unfortunate, then, that those words didn’t concern the Whitman students watching the debate in Maxey Auditorium. A pattern was quickly established: every time Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin spoke, students jeered and laughed at the screen; every time Democrat Joe Biden argued, students cheered, clapped, or –– at one point –– cried “Aww…” when Biden spoke about being a single parent.
It was practically impossible to pay attention to the debate because students were more focused on giggling at Palin’s gaffes rather than focusing on the larger issues at hand present in both candidates’ speeches.
This isn’t an issue of being a concern troll; the Whitman Pioneer staff is not a bunch of closet conservatives using this editorial to “get back” at our liberal campus. This isn’t an issue of whether or not Palin or Biden had political merit in their speeches. Rather, the unwillingness to listen is endemic with the Whitman student body: it’s a reflection of the ignorant, close-minded, unintelligent, and unacceptable political environment here at Whitman.
Consider this our reprimand: we here at the Pioneer are tired of liberals (and conservatives) who are unwillingly to listen and actively engage the other side; we’re tired of those who remain partisan for partisanship’s sake and of those who remain in their political comfort zones for fear that they may inexplicably start a conversation.
During a speech at Brown University on Apr. 22, 2008, New York Times columnist, and “The World is Flat” author, Thomas Friedman was pied in the face by the Greenwash Guerillas, a student environmental group. Friedman, known for his support of capitalism, didn’t even get through his opening statements before a student delivered the pie into his head. If this is our reaction to anyone who disagrees with us, no matter how noble our cause, we will be ineffective.
The beauty of discourse is that hearing the other side’s issues doesn’t necessarily mean that one will have an epiphany and switch ideological sides. Rather, one might come out of the conversation with their beliefs strengthened, and one might find that the other side is more convincing than expected. In either case, this person will be more informed, and will have a more complete understanding of both ideologies.
The devil, however, is in the details. Since Bush ran for president in 2000, but especially during this election, gaffes have replaced issues. Our visual culture, enshrined by YouTube and popular political blogs, is obsessed with Sarah Palin’s inability to string together a sentence when it should be more concerned with her obscene lack of foreign experience. We forget exactly why George W. Bush is such a terrible president because we’re too busy quoting “Bushisms.”
Here’s the Pioneer’s ultimatum: we want students to question why they believe what they believe. We get into trouble when we start thinking that, because our beliefs are self-evident, we don’t need to know why we believe them. We get careless. Our beliefs become superficial: we care more about bumper stickers and T-shirts and yard signs than the principles that they represent.
Our responsibility as intelligent voters is to sift through the issues and hold politicians of all political persuasions to their jobs. We may know all about Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s flaws, but the inflation of Democratic nominee Barack Obama as a sacred cow, resistant to criticism is inexcusable. For instance, did you know that Obama voted for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which grants immunity to telecommunication companies that spy on Americans? We should not be so willing to turn a blind eye to his mistakes, simply because we’ve seen him as a heroic figure for so long.
When we are willing to close off the forum of political discourse to engage in a mindless, masturbatory process of mockery of the other side, as many did one week ago in Maxey auditorium, we have certainly stopped thinking for ourselves.
Harrison • Oct 16, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Thank you, Pioneer Staff, for your timely warning. Some years ago, Ben Stein visited Whitman College and was subject to the same brand of disrespect as Friedman and Palin. By not allowing voices from “the other side” of the issue into discourse, we do little to discourage partisanship. I’m tickled pink that this editorial has garnered online comments––it’s a good one, and it deserves them–, but I see that among The Pioneer’s readership, there are those who would injudiciously second-guess Sen. McCain’s motives for choosing Sarah Palin as a running mate, as well as categorically discredit her as the mouthpiece of the “republican machine.” As America seems to be in the midst of troubled times, it’s important for us as citizens to be receptive to political discourse. In plain English, we need to be respectful of the people in the audience at debate screenings, and of the candidates and their running-mates. Kudos to the Pioneer, but no kudos to those who didn’t have the courtesy or patience to wade through Palin’s murky language to find a real reason to agree or disagree with her.
Brian • Oct 13, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Thank you for a well-crafted call for civil discourse during the last month of the campaign. Unfortunately it appears to have had no effect on those who most need to heed it as evidenced by the two prior responses.
anna • Oct 10, 2008 at 7:45 am
you’re kidding, right? you think that palin’s presence in the arena isn’t masturbatory mockery of the entire voter base of the united states? yay to the Whitman students for spitting back in the face of the republican machine, which seems to be falling apart at the seams.
David • Oct 10, 2008 at 7:43 am
I think a failure to consider both sides is a strong argument. To sit and listen to some completely unqualified statesperson and pretend what they’re saying is coherent (or even makes logical sense) is more desultory to one’s self. You would rather that the students “play nice” and pretend they’re not being asked to overlook a cardinal flaw in the proceedings? This is not our grandparents’ political discourse, this is a token figure being subjected to public scrutiny which she can’t help but fall apart under. You, as her unknowing lackey, are proposing that we gather in acceptance of this debacle and honor the “equality” which is used as a call-out to maintain what balance has been undone by Palin’s own foolish commentaries.