Alessandro van den Brink | Keeping it civil

Like those at most northeastern universities, many of Penn’s students are liberal. Because of this, I wasn’t surprised when I read an article in The Tab called “What it’s like being a Republican at Penn.” The writer interviews a member of Penn College Republicans who details some of the abuse he’s received simply based on his political orientation, including a moment in which he wore a College Republicans tank and was told, “I can’t believe you’re wearing that.”

The one part of the interview that seemed out of place and inaccurate, however, was when the anonymous Republican claims, “I believe conservatives are very tolerant of liberals, while liberals are very intolerant of conservatives.” While the rest of the piece is a glowing endorsement of bipartisan thinking and respecting opposing viewpoints, this sentence simply throws across an unsubstantiated stereotype that really isn’t true.

Political discourse, especially at an intense institution like Penn, is toxic from just about every side and, for the most part, completely unwarranted. Much of the rhetoric about politics has moved from discussing the ideas to discussing the character of the people espousing those ideas. For instance, look at the comments on The Daily Pennsylvanian’s articles online, and you’ll find various insults from “stupid lefty” to “racist conservative,” as if all liberals are stupid and all conservatives are racist.

It’s this kind of vitriol coming from both ideological sides that really limits us from making progress on what really matters: solving problems that afflict Americans. Sometimes it’s hard to believe, but both Democrats and Republicans want to make this country better than it already is. To claim that those who have different solutions to addressing issues are somehow unpatriotic is an absurd notion that many of us are convinced of, despite evidence to the contrary.

I must confess I am certainly guilty of this sort of thinking. My roommate and I, who are political opposites for the most part, even agreed at one point that it would be incredibly difficult to date someone who doesn’t have the same political beliefs as we do. At the time it made sense in my mind since political debates turn personal way too easily, but in hindsight, it’s absurd to filter out possible friends or significant others simply based on their fiscal and societal beliefs.

It’s easy to get angry at someone who doesn’t have the same political beliefs as you, though. Just yesterday, many of us students voted in the Pennsylvania primary elections, and given the strong personal connection many people develop with their preferred candidate, someone voting against you can feel like a personal attack. We too easily buy into the left versus right narrative that pits us against each other and makes it seem as though someone who is a conservative must be the complete antithesis of someone who is liberal.

This vitriol is almost entirely a product of the two-party system that has become mainstream American politics. The Democratic and Republican parties both have official platforms that are over 60 pages long each, and we’re supposed to believe that each voter falls right into line with every single one of those beliefs? As the comedian Louis C.K. has opined, “I think when someone falls into one category for everything, I’m very suspicious. It doesn’t make sense to me that you’d have the same solution to every issue.”

Too often we immediately dismiss a policy because it has been suggested by the opposing party, but when we erase the “liberal” or “conservative” labels on a proposed measure, sometimes we can be surprised of its origins.

A great example of this, which liberal pundit Van Jones pointed out on the most recent episode of “Real Time with Bill Maher,” is cap and trade, which was swiftly adopted by liberal policymakers despite being a proposal from conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation. Another piece of evidence is former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s so-called “Romneycare” during his time as governor of Massachusetts that paved the way for the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as “Obamacare.”

We all have great ideas, and while heated arguments will always be intrinsically linked to political discussion, we must make sure that we create an environment where we’re willing to listen to someone who offers a different perspective than our own. As the Republican in The Tab article notes, “I don’t discuss my political views much with friends since I fear rejection.” When we as a school fail to create a space where students are confident in displaying their opinions, we prevent Penn from being the best university it can be.

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