Editorial
One might argue that in the United States political mudslinging can be traced all the way back to two of America’s first great political minds — Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton, the economic and investment expert, and Jefferson, the son of a Virginia plantation owner, argued from different political ideologies. One stressed the power of the federal government, the other, the individual power of the states.
Over time, these two philosophies developed into political parties — Hamilton’s Federalists and Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans. These two groups quickly attracted loyalties, each declaring the other’s philosophy ineffective, corrupt and/or troublesome. The Federalists generally attracted wealthy landowners, while the Democratic-Republican’s platform appealed to the common, working man.
More than 200 years after these two sides helped forge the foundation of American democracy, this two-party system developed into what we know as Democrats and Republicans, and the differing political approaches, conservatism and liberalism.
Clearly, staking out one’s own political philosophy is as traditional to this country’s democratic system as are checks and balances. After all, as a nation founded on freedom of expression, everyone is guaranteed the right to dissent, to disagree with the majority opinion, to forge his or her own path. But today, it seems many are driven to choose between only two routes, aptly named the left and the right, as if to suggest one is heading in the exact opposite direction.
Nearly all of today’s most popular television news shows on channels like MSNBC, CNN or the Fox News Channel feature (at one point or another) two political analysts, one a liberal, the other a conservative, engaging in a shouting match over the day’s issues that is so loud you can’t really hear what they’re saying. Generally, their politics are either so far left or so far right on topics that their responses are as predictable as a soft drink machine. No room is left in the middle. No space for common ground.
It is no surprise then that this divisive political mindset has found a home on America’s university campuses, where energetic young voters are encouraged by radio’s “talking heads” to pick a side and stick with it. Liberal and conservative bashing has replaced free political forum. Irrational attacks have replaced rational thinking.
Ethicist Franklyn Haiman defined his “degree of rationality,” as the measuring stick to determine fundamental democratic value. His scale is based upon the medium’s enhancement of humankind’s capacity to reason logically. Our country’s political approach to solving its most serious issues has, according to this definition, reached a low degree of rationality.
Aristotle taught about what he called the “Golden Mean” – saying that true virtue most often lies somewhere between two undesirable extremes. He suggested that solutions to our greatest problems can only be found when each side agrees to give up some ground.
With the 2004 presidential election still seven months away, the vicious mudslinging between the Republican and Democratic political machines has begun in full force. And once again, the two sides seem more concerned with pointing fingers at one another than trying to solve our nation’s most urgent problems. One can’t help but see the absurdity in politicians arguing over past voting records and college-age exploits while Americans continue to lose jobs here at home, and while soldiers lose their lives in the Middle East.
As the foundation of the future electorate, and most likely home to future mayors, council members and senators, Pepperdine should take it upon itself to do its part in changing this counterproductive political atmosphere. Students, politically involved or not, need to stop worrying about titles and associations and start caring about the issues.
If we can take anything from the Pepperdine experience let it be that a compassionate and open-minded approach to life will open doors to us that a stubborn and cynical approach will not. The time has come to bridge the gap between the right and the left and to start freeing the partisan stranglehold on the American democracy we were all promised in the Constitution.
And it all starts here.
Let us not forget the forewarning of this country’s first president, George Washington, who in his 1796 farewell address, spoke frankly on the nature of political parties and political alliances.
“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension … is itself a frightful despotism…” Washington said. “And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent from bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”
Submitted April 1, 2004