Political Dialogs

Volume 1: Political Assumptions and Activism

Today I was invited to assist in facilitating a discussion between student staff members of the higher education institution for which I will be attending graduate school this fall. The students that were invited to come had answered a questionnaire either 1) I felt adamant about John Kerry becoming President or 2) I felt adamantly about George W. Bush becoming President. My co-facilitator, after being told she was a "community member" that felt strongly about John Kerry, turned out to be a prominent staff member of the Progressive Democrats of America. That would have been nice to know, but oh well...

Anyway, my first post in this discussion will focus on assumptions and activism. First, I must make my preexisting assumptions clear. It has been my personal experience that liberals are more vocal and active about their political ideals than conservatives. My theory was again proved today, as from eight adamant supporters of George Bush and eight adamant supporters of John Kerry invited, seven liberals arrived as compared to one conservative. It could just be due to the fact that the Democrats are out of power and lost the last presidential election, or it could be due to my previous theory of activism.

Second, I find that many of these students have very strong assumptions and generalizations about those that differ with them, as well as a number of unconfirmed and ridiculous beliefs about politics. One member of the group, while introducing herself and describing her political affiliations, neglected completely to mention what party she identified with (which was the point of the exercise.) She assumed both that by being a black person from the "south" and her father being active in politics, that we would know. Not only did she make this assumption, she also described how her (thus unnamed) political ideology was founded by describing that she grew up in the south alongside many "close-minded" people. Fortunately, this comment was quickly called to attention by our mediator, but the fact of her statement remains. She assumed that it would be a no-brainer that we would know she was a liberal (and by the way, those conservative southerners are "close minded," Duh!)

I find one of the greatest problems with higher education institutions that claim to be storehouses of knowledge and open thought to be that they are in fact sinkholes of liberal ideology. Students that attend these institutions are so casual in their stereotyping of conservatives that in a political discussion that in the beginning was clearly described to prevent assumptions and stereotypes, included such comments being nakedly released. These students were obviously so unchallenged in their thinking that one made a statement that he is "as liberal as you can get" and that thus his only sources of news are "the New York Times and NPR." Quite astonishing. Also, in taking up the topic that churches and religions shouldn't dictate political ideas, one student referred to "that time Bush recited a Bible verse, and he credited it as John 6:13 instead of John 3:16! Half of my church didn't know who to vote for then!" The old "John 6:13" is a common urban legend that has been falsely attributed to George W. Bush and John Kerry, as well as Al Gore in 1999.

The point that I tried to arise in the discussion, and that was obvious by the points and statements made earlier, is that to be involved in politics and to be effective in discussions one must study and learn for themselves what views they have, so that if you are challenged in a discussion, or by your church, or by your friends, you will know where you stand and why. I don't think they got it.