The sorry state of Penn's political discourse

Ithink I know why young people don't vote in presidential elections.

Low voter turnout among college students is a hot topic in the news. MTV has a "Rock the Vote" campaign to show us that voting is "cool." Election volunteers attempt vigorously to register us to vote. And Penn's Fox Leadership Program recently sponsored a "Take Back the Vote" campaign that focused on the question, "Why are youth volunteering but not voting?"

I know I'm the type of student that these efforts are targeting. I have an obsessive interest in politics, and I read several newspapers every day. I actually do want to change the world. I volunteer extensively. And yet, I have little interest in voting.

I'm not proud of my inclination to skip voting. I feel that I should want to vote, especially because I recognize that people have lost their lives fighting for the right to do so. I agree with the notion that non-voters have no right to complain about the actions of elected officials. I have little respect for people who claim that voting is "too hard" or "too time-consuming." I even feel that voting is a civic duty.

Unfortunately, I am so turned off by the low level of discourse in my environment that I am tempted to withdraw from the political process. I'm not referring to partisan ads or negative speeches from politicians; we all know that campaigns spew drivel. Rather, I'm referring to political discussions on the Penn campus.

Recently, this newspaper published a column in which the writer wrote a sarcastic "fan letter" to the young Republican who was caught on camera kicking an AIDS protester after she fell to the ground at the Republican Youth Convention. Needless to say, the kicker's actions were inexcusable. However, the column went so far as to imply that the kicker should join the army, go to Iraq and die by getting his face blown off. A little strong, perhaps? A stroll down Locust Walk reveals further examples of vehement, simplistic advocacy, including "Kerry wants to make you poor!" "Bush doesn't want you to go to college!" and the ever-popular "Stop murdering babies!"

Now, I hate to be a snob, but this over-simplification insults my intelligence. The sensationalized, emotional appeals offend my sense of decency. I don't want to be associated with people who wish their opponents to be mutilated and killed in Iraq. I cringe at the thought of being publicly identified with someone who shrieks that Bush is mentally retarded. My repulsion at on-campus political tactics tempts me to withdraw into my little community service cocoon.

I have often wondered why campus activists pursue this approach. The online responses to the aforementioned column offered a clue. Although some posts chastised the column's methods, many were from supporters saying something like, "Yeah! Get 'em! That was awesome!" Other on-campus activists get similar responses. On a broader level, all of this indicates that any activist with a simplistic, nasty approach can rile supporters into a frenzy; the supporters then offer immediate positive feedback that persuades the activist of the "effectiveness" of his or her approach. Meanwhile, the equally vehement responses from political opponents are viewed as proof that the tactics were successful. "After all," people claim, "the opponents wouldn't have responded so angrily if the original wound wasn't profound."

Unfortunately, while the activists are busy yelling at each other and congratulating themselves, the moderate majority is disgusted. The vehement approaches make everyone but the extremists want to disengage. As a result, new supporters do not join the causes that the activists advocate. The fact is, people don't adopt a political ideology because they have been informed that the opposing candidate is "evil incarnate."

It is in this atmosphere that I am told that, as a college-aged voter, I must vote and become politically active. "Become active with whom?" I wonder. As a person who is uncomfortable using the term "Lucifer" to describe my opponents, I feel alone in the campus political arena. Resigned, I focus my civic energies on community service -- mentoring at-risk girls in northeast Philly and teaching music to local middle-school students. Unlike campus activism, these activities don't rely on spreading simplistic hatred.

Ultimately, however, I think I am not alone. Surely there are other politically oriented people who cringe at the activists' insults. I implore these individuals to become more visible. Promote your views, whatever they are, without losing your moderation in expressing them.

In the end, I probably will vote in November. I encourage other voters who are appalled by the activists to do the same. I think voting may be the best way to counteract the shriekers. Vehemently proclaiming that your opponent should die is destructive political activism; by contrast, voting is constructive. Moreover, we should not empower the extremists with the ability to discourage our participation.

Now, the next question is who I should vote for. I'm tempted to vote for the candidate whose supporters are the least offensive. But that's another column.

Jennifer Weiss is a senior Linguistics and Theatre Arts major from Los Angeles. War On Error appears on Wednesdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.