Haas’ last word: politics need respect

This will be my 54th and last column. In two years of writing, I’ve covered numerous policies, frequent congressional failures and rare congressional successes. I’ve been called an “O-bola-crat liberal” and compared to the dictators of Marxist totalitarian regimes, neither of which I plan to pursue as a job title. When I look back on writing, however, the most important lesson I’ve learned comes not from any particular column — it comes from those comments.

I probably won’t remember every detail of the success of the Affordable Care Act or the particular legal arguments against affirmative action, but I will remember the value of the debate and exchange of ideas on each of those issues. To this day, I still believe conversations among an enlightened citizenry are the bedrock of the functioning of a free, progressive society, and now, in my last column, I offer some parting thoughts on how to make those conversations better.

First, though the rise of social media has made it easier for dialogue, Spider-Man’s Uncle Ben is right: with great power comes great responsibility. Historically, political debates were held in person in front of a live audience. The only way to hear about them was to either show up or read about them in the newspaper the next day. When TV and then the Internet came along, those debates were suddenly in front of a virtual audience of millions — a great benefit, but also a great drawback. Fact is, TV and social media in particular won’t better us politically until we are still able to say to each other’s faces what we say to each other’s Facebook statuses and in published writing.

I’m guilty of this myself. Especially when I have a bone to pick, I find it easier to write about a particular issue, group or person and send it off to cyberspace than to stand in the quad with a megaphone and shout it to a gathered group of students. Politicians know this, too. On C-SPAN3, you’ll see speeches on the floor of the Senate or House of Representatives in front of an empty room. Watch a senator get interviewed on Fox News, and they’ll say things about people that they might not say if they were standing face-to-face. How many Republicans who have opted to deride gay marriage on television or in a newspaper article (as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal did yesterday), would do the same in a room full of gay people, or around their dinner table next to a gay family member?

If we aren’t willing to give our opponents the same virtual respect that we would give them in person, technology has failed us. In fact, it’s no wonder we aren’t willing to listen to our adversaries and our political system is plagued by a failure to compromise. Politics won’t be any less divided until we are willing to overcome this and embrace a culture of being accountable for what we say. Case in point? Republicans recently inserted language opposing abortion into a bipartisan bill designated to ramp up legal action against human traffickers. Democrats won’t vote for the bill anymore — but the catch? They didn’t notice Republicans had inserted the language until after the damage was done because they didn’t read the bill. That failure is an outgrowth of our inability to listen, and this trend must be reversed.

Particularly in political debates, we know that hypercharged speech sells — just ask Ann Coulter or Bill Maher. As a result of this social conditioning, we writers and speakers often gravitate toward the grandiose and melodramatic instead of putting our opponents in the most positive light possible. That’s why I think the challenge before journalists, politicians and a new generation of voters is to repackage our arguments in a way that is both interesting and respectful. After all, our opponents are people who care as passionately about the issues as we do, and that’s better than people who don’t care at all.

I usually try and conclude columns by returning to the ideas I outlined in the beginning, so it is only fitting that these two years of weekly writings end with a statement from my first column two years ago. I said, “The ideal outcome is not to increase the times we agree, but rather to make the times that we disagree more productive.” I offer these parting thoughts in support of the golden rule of arguing: disagree with others as you would have them disagree with you. To anyone who has read, commented or shared these writings over the last two years, thank you. I hope you have enjoyed my efforts to make folks more engaged and the state of our union stronger.

Nathaniel Haas is a junior majoring in political science and economics. His column, “State of the Union,” ran Fridays.