Boundaries between traditional views of conservatism and liberalism fell into dissolution last Thursday as the Progressive Students Movement hosted State Representative Jon Elrod and Congressional candidate Nels Ackerson in Baxter 101 to discuss political reconciliation.
PSM President Gary James ‘10, who founded the movement with Josh Lopez ’10 after tiring of heated debates between opposing organizations, declared that the purpose of the club was to “depolarize the campus in the tone of some of our campus debates about local and larger issues. We realized that [Wabash] was a microcosm of the real world.”
PSM, a diverse group containing Greeks, independents, Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, moderates, and liberals, seeks to unify society throughout the political spectrum. “What brings [PSM] together is the belief that division in our politics and our society is the greatest impediment to moving through many issues,” said Mr. James.
While opposing superheated debate, PSM still upholds the right to personal beliefs. “One should not disavow their political convictions or not debate an idea she or he disagrees with,” he continued. “Debate should be honest, it should be civil, and it should hopefully be educational.”
The forum began with a speech given by professor of political science Dr. David Hadley, who served as a legislative liaison to Evan Bayh. Dr. Hadley was introduced by PSM Minister of Advocacy Alex Avtgis ’11.
“This is a forum on political polarization,” began Dr. Hadley. “We have all seen and heard the descriptions that America has polarized society and polarized politics. You’re all familiar with the red state/blue state divide.’
But, as Dr. Hadley pointed out, “It’s not as black and white, or red and blue, as it would seem.”
Dr. Hadley illustrated the fierce divide between the political left and right in our country with many recent partisan causes: the impeachment of former President Clinton, the absurdly close 2000 presidential election, the presidency of George W. Bush (whom Dr. Hadley considers to be a divider, not a uniter), and the Iraq war, which in January 2006 demonstrated a gap of sixty percent between conservative and liberal difference. The Korean War never exceeded twenty percent. Vietnam never exceeded fifteen percent.
Several other factors contribute to the growing epidemic of polarization, and there is a huge change in the gap between conservative and liberal agreement from 1964 to today, and the overlap of agreement only continues to dwindle in size. Topics such as gay marriage, abortion, and the war in Iraq fuel the fire of isolation. Worst of all, the “harshness of political rhetoric” does nothing to smother these flames, which erupt in shouting matches on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC.
“The public rhetoric we hear from elected public officials may not reflect the underlying levels of agreement,” said Dr. Hadley. “It may reflect intensity of opinion and belief in the extremes.” Abortion, which has been a source of strife since the controversial decision reached in 1973’s Roe v. Wade, is an excellent case in point, as many Americans share similar viewpoints on the finer details of the topic; but it may not necessarily acknowledge that agreement.
Dr. Hadley summarized his speech into four points: close division versus deep division, public rhetoric, polarization in the political elite, and the possible unifying effects of George Bush leaving office. He also stressed that political parties are “makers of government and modern democracy, and act in sustaining and maintaining democracy.”
Following this short introductory speech by Dr. Hadley, PSM Treasurer Cody Stipes ’11 illustrated the political lives of both Representative Elrod and Mr. Ackerson. Representative Elrod was the first to speak.
“I first need to make an apology,” began Rep. Elrod. “My father is a ‘62 graduate of DePauw, my older brother is a ’98 graduate of DePauw, and my twin brother is a ’99 graduate of DePauw.”
Amid laughter and applause, Rep. Elrod claimed the great divide between the right and left has roots in America’s parliamentary system. As a state representative, Mr. Elrod used an example he knew best: the statehouse.
“The speaker has almost absolute power,” he said. “It’s basically a dictatorship. One person gets to decide what bills are heard and what bills are not heard.”
Even though an average of fifteen bills may be introduced in sessions of Congress, very few are heard because so many get killed, according to Rep. Elrod.
“The speaker also chooses who gets to be committee chairs and who gets to be on committees,” he said.
Rep. Elrod does not necessarily agree that a system where passing laws is difficult is a bad thing. “As a conservative, I would argue that we have too many laws,” he said. However, the process causes controversy when opposing members skew introduced legislature and the bill is killed. This limits discussions on important populace issues.
Rep. Elrod addressed other reasons for polarization. Campaigns are viciously carried out, and political rhetoric is employed by politicians to skew the viewpoints of their opposition, changing what is actually said.
Rep. Elrod advised several measures for breaking polarization in our country, including being genuine with opinions, avoiding “junior high debate tactics”, being careful with labels such as “conservative” and “liberal”, avoiding relativism (in other words, taking a stance), avoiding shouting matches, avoiding self-righteousness, and avoiding “rooting” for political parties in the same manner as one would for sports teams.
Congressional candidate Nels Ackerson also delivered a witty but serious presentation on reconciliation. A bipartisan Democrat, whose campaign team consists of Democrats and Republicans, said that “a country works best when we reach across party lines and try to find some common ground. That’s the way we have succeeded in accomplishing great things in the past.”
To illustrate the severity of the status quo, Mr. Ackerson told a well-known joke: “How many politicians does it take to screw in a light bulb? It takes none; they’d rather blame the other guy for the darkness.” The joke elicited laughter from the crowd, but also displayed the disheartening state of affairs concerning our nation’s political divide.
According to Mr. Ackerson, this attitude is a problem. However, although it is not his primary goal, he hopes his bipartisan campaign will help to assuage the bitter divide.
“One of my agricultural committees is chaired by a Republican,” said Mr. Ackerson. “It reflects the nature of agriculture in Indiana. I want the best advice from the people in my district. I don’t care what party they’re in.”
Mr. Ackerson agreed with the sentiments of Rep. Elrod, saying that, “John gave great advice and wisdom.” Both men agreed that the media contributed to the hostility of the divide in their attempt to increase ratings, that labels damage honest debates, that nonpartisan districting is exactly the right thing to do, and that certain aspects need to change, such as earmarks.
“If we can just cross party lines for things that make sense,” said Mr. Ackerson, “we can get stuff done.”