Lazarus Austin is a junior majoring in history. He can be contacted at [email protected].In the course of human debate, there is one constant: deprecation.
Unfortunately, most modern debates boil down to two sides: Republican and Democrat, or conservative and liberal.
In the process of these debates, each side gets belittled simply because of its label. Arguments no longer become important. Instead, dialogue descends to simply accusing the other side of being too liberal or too conservative.
For example, if someone is arguing a point that does not necessarily fit his party’s viewpoint – let’s say, a liberal viewpoint in this case – then he is labeled as conservative, and vice versa. According to this logic, there is only black and white, Republican and Democrat.
Also, everything becomes important except for the merits of arguments. Social status, education, party tickets, economic status and past history all become important in determining whether someone is right or wrong.
For example, as an opinion writer, I obviously get a lot of feedback from other people either through e-mail or comments on the Web site. Of course, some are supportive; others are not so supportive. Some of the most common responses I receive are jabs at the fact that I am a college student with no “real world experience.”
“Wow, some kid who went to a community college and had to read ‘1984’ in high school is calling out the government on being Big Brother,” one commenter on the Web site said of one my articles.
Such comments are not limited to feedback from readers of college newspapers. Political pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage love to degrade people as “feminazis” or “red diaper doper babies.” They may only be referring to radicals, but their aggressive and contemptuous tactics rub off on their listeners.
In more general debates, such as those on taxes, people are accused of being “corporate jockeys” or “welfare slackers.” College students are believed to be liberals by nature, and Christians are automatically conservative.
I hate political labels. If I label myself, I am more likely to commit myself to that label’s position on some topic, simply for the sake of following that label.
Simultaneously, in a debate on an issue, the other side will simply boil my arguments down as being “liberal” or “conservative.” Furthermore, some political opponent will be more inclined to disagree with me.
As I have explained in a previous article, my only label is “right,” meaning I believe what I think is right, moral, just and beneficial to society.
The course of human debate has been destroyed by this kind of degradation. People cannot argue without being labeled a “tree hugger” or a “white supremacist.”
Everyone has a right to argue a position. Simply because I am not a farmer does not mean I can’t vote on farmers’ issues. Even if people are not directly involved with something, they have a right to take a stand on an issue. Farmers get subsidies from our tax dollars. The food that I buy at the grocery is made on farms – some of it anyway.
You do not have to have an advanced degree to vote on issues, either. Most people do not have PhDs in environmental topics, but they are expected to vote on global warming issues. I get tired of people telling me what I think doesn’t matter because I am not trained in that field.
The people need to focus on issues, not labels. Everything is not black and white. Every side has legitimate arguments, and different people have different values. Instead of resorting to name calling and belittling, political opponents should focus on legitimate and sincere debates.