I think this is a very mature post, thank you. I hope people on both sides take note, but doubt it.
I was recently involved in a (civil) exchange on Substack. I made the point that open borders mean an unlimited labour pool, which has to be bad for the working class. Voting against it from a working class perspective is rational rather than racist. I was told that’s just flat wrong. They’ve somehow been convinced of it against the evidence.
I had an exchange on Medium a while back. It was civil until the lady said 25% of women serving in the armed forces have been raped. It seemed such an astonishing allegation that I fact checked it. I replied (with links) that 25% of females in the armed forces have complained about some level of harassment, ranging from off colour remarks to pinched bottoms, but only a tiny proportion have alleged rape, of which a smaller percentage were prosecuted. I got a “calling me a liar” diatribe and the conversation.
ended abruptly.
I fear tribal allegiances are strongly held and difficult to budge.
Thank you for your kind words Martin. I agree that there exists a large swath of assumptions about hot button issues on both sides. Indeed, many of the challenges America faces such as the border and sexual harassment deserve attention, but as you've pointed out, language matters. Dialogue often ends because folks (especially those who are left-leaning such as myself) believe that conservatives have some sort of clandestine sinister agenda. I share your fears, but I think a first step is promoting the idea that conservatives and liberals alike want the country to succeed. This shouldn't be such a tall order, but it is.
It's ironic that Columbia students -- people with very little actual life experience who are moreover cushioned against real-life effects of any presidential administration -- have some of the strongest political opinions.
As an alumnus (SIA ‘81, before it became SIPA) and Trump voter, I congratulate and thank you for your commentary. I hope that your left-leaning fellow students, and professors, will give it serious and thoughtful consideration.
Thank you very much Stephen. From the feedback I've received so far, it seems like my classmates have read my piece with an open mind, even if they don't agree with everything that I wrote.
"We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist." -- James Baldwin
As a dutiful pre-law at the College, I participated in the Debate Club. It sponsored a debate between William F. Buckley and Daniel Patrick Moynihan in Low Library. Does anyone sponsor debates which students can attend or participate in? Or do the leftist communists shout down any speaker with whom they disagree?
I think this is a very mature post, thank you. I hope people on both sides take note, but doubt it.
I was recently involved in a (civil) exchange on Substack. I made the point that open borders mean an unlimited labour pool, which has to be bad for the working class. Voting against it from a working class perspective is rational rather than racist. I was told that’s just flat wrong. They’ve somehow been convinced of it against the evidence.
I had an exchange on Medium a while back. It was civil until the lady said 25% of women serving in the armed forces have been raped. It seemed such an astonishing allegation that I fact checked it. I replied (with links) that 25% of females in the armed forces have complained about some level of harassment, ranging from off colour remarks to pinched bottoms, but only a tiny proportion have alleged rape, of which a smaller percentage were prosecuted. I got a “calling me a liar” diatribe and the conversation.
ended abruptly.
I fear tribal allegiances are strongly held and difficult to budge.
Thank you for your kind words Martin. I agree that there exists a large swath of assumptions about hot button issues on both sides. Indeed, many of the challenges America faces such as the border and sexual harassment deserve attention, but as you've pointed out, language matters. Dialogue often ends because folks (especially those who are left-leaning such as myself) believe that conservatives have some sort of clandestine sinister agenda. I share your fears, but I think a first step is promoting the idea that conservatives and liberals alike want the country to succeed. This shouldn't be such a tall order, but it is.
Great job!
It's ironic that Columbia students -- people with very little actual life experience who are moreover cushioned against real-life effects of any presidential administration -- have some of the strongest political opinions.
As an alumnus (SIA ‘81, before it became SIPA) and Trump voter, I congratulate and thank you for your commentary. I hope that your left-leaning fellow students, and professors, will give it serious and thoughtful consideration.
Thank you very much Stephen. From the feedback I've received so far, it seems like my classmates have read my piece with an open mind, even if they don't agree with everything that I wrote.
"We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist." -- James Baldwin
If you think the students are hostile, wait til you talk to the faculty and administrators.
As a dutiful pre-law at the College, I participated in the Debate Club. It sponsored a debate between William F. Buckley and Daniel Patrick Moynihan in Low Library. Does anyone sponsor debates which students can attend or participate in? Or do the leftist communists shout down any speaker with whom they disagree?