Erin: I sought to validate my political opinions when I started writing this column. Now that it has come to a close, I can say this – I am definitely a Democrat, but no more of one than when my debating with Phil began. What do I mean by this?
I mean that researching and arguing the liberal stance on the issues that we discussed – the environment, feminism, campaign finance, et cetera – planted my feet on the liberal side of the political spectrum, but it did not lock me in place. Debating with Phil, a self-proclaimed “establishment Republican,” made me defend my views and therefore hold those views more strongly, but in the process, I discovered that I didn’t always like the platform of either political party. Often times, I saw room for compromise where today’s polarized politicians do not, which triggered dissatisfaction with the entire American political agenda. Thus, I don’t feel attached to my place on that spectrum ranging from liberal to conservative.
Furthermore, I think that this outlook is ideal. I hope that anyone who reads this column (and all Americans for that matter) will have a similar takeaway. We will never all share the same opinion on any political issue and thus there is never one right opinion; as such, being adaptable and willing to compromise is the best stance individuals can take because it is the one that will get the most done in the United States.
On that note of cooperation, I would like to thank Phil for debating with me in the Swing Vote column this year. It was a learning experience, and hopefully a teaching experience for those who followed our weekly antics. The experience has sparked in me a desire to keep talking politics, so even though our column is coming to a close, the spirit will live on!
Phil: Across the country, top colleges and universities are becoming increasingly unsafe. They are becoming unsafe, ironically enough because of recent efforts to create “safe spaces.” The reality is that the new ultra-liberal (for lack of a better term) crusade to make colleges “safer” is on par with the Orwellian concept of “groupthink” and is an active threat to liberal education and democracy.
The concept of “safe” or “unsafe” that I am referring to has nothing to do with physical danger. I am referring to a rapidly advancing trend in which ideas that are contrary to one’s own deeply held beliefs and values can actually cause perceived psychological harm and therefore make one feel “unsafe.” For those who would like a better definition, read the New York Times Op-Ed: “In College and Hiding from Scary Ideas.” The bottom line is that while some may feel uncomfortable with certain ideas or viewpoints, the crusade for a “safe space” is often used as an excuse to censor speech and debate –often cutting it off entirely.
The very essence of a liberal arts education is the exposure to a broad base of ideas and viewpoints that may often be contrary to your own. Moreover, if minority viewpoints are increasingly marginalized in our society – starting on college campuses – then willingly we are submitting our society to the tyranny of the majority. I can only hope that in writing this column Erin and I have contributed to the open competition of ideas. This point-counterpoint column is just one small step in a larger movement to combat the marginalization of minority viewpoints on campus and in our society. If collectively we fail to respect minority viewpoints, and in doing so effectively censor speech on college campuses, we may very well develop a democracy-in-name-only, or something much worse. Thank you for reading Swing Vote this year. God bless America.
