Can we have political conversations with our peers without hostility?
November 17, 2020
In a country where it seems we don’t agree on much, we can all agree on one thing – the first presidential debate was ridiculously laughable. There is no need to relive what happened, but it got me to thinking – can we have political conversations without hostility? I wasn’t the only one left with that thought.
During the Vice Presidential debate, an eighth-grader named Brecklynn Brown voiced her concern and asked a question to the candidates.
“When I watch the news, all I see is arguing between Democrats and Republicans,” Brown said. “When I watch the news, all I see is citizens fighting against citizens. When I watch the news, all I see are two candidates from opposing parties trying to tear each other down. If our leaders can’t get along, how are the citizens supposed to get along?”
The world isn’t a perfect place and inevitably, everyone will not get along. However, when two presidential candidates cannot share a stage without creating a spectacle – a laughable debate becomes more alarming than amusing.
Presidential debates discuss important, life-altering issues that determine the outcome of our country and without civil communication, as we saw in the first debate, the issues get put on the backburner while the immature actions are what people discuss. How does the discourse at the highest levels of our political system impact how everyday Americans talk about the issues that impact them the most.
There is no way to avoid the controversy that comes with bringing up a political issue because everyone has their own opinion. However, when these opinions turn into personal attacks political conversations are no longer effective. This devolution of political conversation is what Americans witnessed during the first debate.
Yet, it doesn’t always have to be that way.
In the absence of positive examples from our leaders, we can be an example for others. Take a minute to hear people out, let them express how they feel. When you do, they’ll be more inclined to do the same.
At the end of the day, we are all human. I feel confident in saying most of us want what is best for all people. It is easy to villainize someone for thinking differently than you and a lot harder to try to reach a common ground with one another. Take the more challenging route and discover we are all much more similar than we think.
Grace Brady is a sophomore studying political science and film. Follow her on Twitter @gracebrady123.
PBJ • Nov 20, 2020 at 2:15 am
i think political conversations became ineffective when the parties looked fascism right in the eye and said “okay, we can work with this.” i’m not going to be civil with someone who believes my friends and i don’t deserve rights because we’re gay, transgender, people of color, poor, etc. i think you need to reevaluate what you’re asking marginalized people to do in this article. you are asking us to set aside our experiences so we can socialize or debate with people who disagree with our very existence. you’re asking us to address bigots as if these issues are just a “matter of opinion.” these issues impact our lives. they’re not something you can debate. they’re not something people should feel comfortable enough to disagree with. until you stop viewing human rights as a “matter of opinion,” you will never understand why there is such intense polarization and hostility.
KHALID FATIH • Nov 18, 2020 at 2:13 pm
On 20 January 2021, Democrat Joe Biden will be sworn in 46 th president of the United States. And, on that date, Donald Trump will once again become a “simple” citizen. Thus deprived of the legal shield he has enjoyed since he was elected president, the Republican could become the first federal head of state to have to answer for some of his acts in court.
If the Constitution of the United States does not specifically state that the president in office enjoys immunity, one of the founding fathers of the country, Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804), had written in the Federalist Papers (collection which makes reference to interpret the Basic Law) that he could “after his mandate be prosecuted and punished by ordinary law” . In 1973, then in 2000 , the Ministry of Justice (Department of Justice, DoJ) had also issued recommendations in this direction, considering that indicting a president in office “would harm” the proper functioning of the White House.