When I was young, my friend and I tried to remove a decaying tree trunk by lighting a fire inside it. We barely prevented a forest fire with the help of my father and an arsenal of squirt guns.
I couldn’t have felt more stupid.
We all learn from such failures — we avoid them not only to prevent catastrophes, but also to avoid appearing foolish.
Similarly, people sometimes avoid making their thoughts known to the world due to external pressures.
Maintaining an environment of intimidation in the realm of opinions and ideas is now widely accepted in political media and undermines democracy, as well as the betterment of the human condition.
We have all heard that there is no such thing as a dumb question.
I contend that there is no dumb assertion, so long as it encourages respectful criticism and public discourse.
This semester, my first as a columnist, I intend to write from a rational, radical and compassionate position on the Left: I think the community of the Left has historically promoted more productive public discussion and, more importantly, political dissent.
To clarify, when I say “the Left,” I do not mean the Democratic Party.
Democrats should not be considered the entire Left, perhaps not even a portion of it. They should be considered moderates. The Left could more accurately be defined as those involved in or sympathetic with Occupy.
In future columns, I will likely promote ideologies such as socialism, which has been demonized by the Right in public discourse.
But the Left is not innocent of tainting political debate with rhetorical slander. It’s just less successful due to minority status.
The reasoning provided for each case of rhetorical defamation is founded in resistance to consolidation of power and oppression.
Refusing to at least humor an opposing ideology is to forsake that which seems favorable to both sides: democracy. Despite this massively important commonality, we have economic, ideological warfare over single words — Left and Right — that fail enormously to encapsulate complete meaning.
We need to abandon our overly-simplistic and militaristic rhetoric in the political sphere and reinstate the value of complex articulation and compassion in the market of political and social ideas — ideological pacifism.
Condescension creates division regardless of the qualities of one’s opinion.
Entrenched division undermines democracy and allows for preexisting, consolidated powers to have disproportionate influence.
Whether one wants to prevent the Occupy crowd from destroying what doesn’t deserve to be destroyed or wants to help dismantle a corrupt society for the sake of egalitarian progress, we will collectively improve only in a convergence of opposing viewpoints with mutual respect for one another.
Such a convergence is democracy. Such a convergence is community.
We need it now, and we need increased engagement in productive dialogue. We need to see that the only fools are those resistant to criticism or unwilling to engage in political discourse.
So, please criticize me.
— proren@indiana.edu
— proren@indiana.edu
