Zachary Antoyan is a political science junior and Mustang Daily liberal columnist.
Sometimes I sit in front of my computer and stare at my blinking cursor, hoping the dim glow and ominous blank page will provide some sort of divine inspiration for my articles. Believe it or not, the most difficult part of writing the liberal column is doing justice to the liberal perspective, while at the same time not falling prey to the pitfalls that accompany such a position. And there are many.
But these pitfalls are shared by every position, regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum. A reliance on rhetoric, neglecting blatant and relevant facts and contradictions within our own value systems make taking a side on any issue a risky endeavor. In many ways, picking a side can simply be a matter of opinion.
It occurs to me, however, that I am apprehensive about using the word “opinion” at all. Opinions are fallible. I guess it is sort of ironic then, that that is exactly what I am writing.
What I am getting at is this: What is meaningful political discourse? What does it look like? How can we engage in it if we rely so heavily on matters of opinion? An editorial piece that ran in The New York Times about a year ago asks if political discourse in the country had hit rock bottom. The author cites instances such as that of Rick Santorum, a Republican presidential nominee hopeful at the time. He claimed that women in combat would prove to be a distraction for other male servicemembers. But in many ways, the author commits many of the same logical fallacies his examples use. There is no link between what constitutes “rock-bottom” for political discourse, and there sure as hell isn’t a link between the opinions in his examples and how they are hurting political discourse in the first place.
Essentially, the author singles out far-right perspectives, and some of the most extreme forms at that, and shoves the blame of damaging this discourse on them. All that stuff I don’t agree with? Yeah, that’s the cancer. Hey, you! Stop saying those things!
Newsflash: Those ideological extremes are the essence of discourse. If we take discourse to be a mechanism through which we collectively examine our values and opinions, then how can we expect it to be meaningful if we don’t allow the broader spectrum to voice its perspective? I would rather know the opinions that are circulating within society, than allow them to be marginalized and fester beneath any semblance of political correctness.
Civil rights in this country have over time been expanded, largely over the very discourse that brings to light multiple perspectives (and just because one of the largest disagreements resulted in a civil war doesn’t mean we should avoid these types of conversations altogether).
What’s more is that we are at a point where this mechanism can flourish and expand. The Internet provides the perfect medium through which discourse can happen, and we actively watch these topics materialize into actions. The influence of Twitter, Facebook and YouTube on politics is unlike any other form of discourse in human history, perhaps only rivaled by the printing press. Of course, along with the possibilities of a more engaged and informed society, comes the issue of the rapid dissemination of false information.
Many would claim these outlets to merely fuel the fires that arise from social conflicts. Having the ability, however, to communicate in this way can indeed be used to better understand our own perspectives and social values.
Besides, they’re here to stay anyway.
This is Zachary Antoyan, thanking his editors for the opportunity to ramble once a week, and for putting up with his unprofessional ass. Kick ass on your finals for me, and I’ll see you next year.