Partisanship has led to positive discussion
Most of us students were only in the formative pre-adolescent years of our childhood when Al-Qaeda terrorists carried out their horrendous attacks on our nation, but we all remember that day. The phrase “9/11: We Will Never Forget” is permanently etched into many of our memories, guaranteeing we will, in fact, never forget.
Edwin Rodriguez | Daily Trojan
After the attacks, everyone was united in their shock, confusion and grief. There was no Democrat or Republican, only American.
Partisanship did re-emerge as usual. But something else had been set in motion by the attacks that would pervade the American political scene for years to come: the American people’s renewed passion for its country.
Such a political trend among us might at first glance reflect a lack of patriotism, but this passionate disagreement actually suggests the existence of an even stronger kind of patriotism.
America had settled into a comfortable position politically in the years prior to the attacks. People were satisfied with letting their representatives run the government for them. Voter turnout in the 1996 and 2000 elections was at its lowest in years.
When Sept. 11 happened, people were forced to question their sense of security, increasing political consciousness and active participation in the government by the people.
The political infighting among our representatives has, if anything, intensified, sometimes resulting in congressional deadlock. This is nothing new, but in the years since the worst act of terrorism on American soil, we citizens have become more outspoken in our disagreements as to the best way to run our nation.
This trend applies not just to large populist movements like the Tea Party, but to the student community as well. The mindset following Sept. 11 has manifested itself in our generation, making us the harbingers of a more involved kind of patriotism.
At USC, political engagement and disagreement has increased in the last 10 years. Topics such as the Tea Party are frequently discussed in a variety of courses, and multiple Daily Trojan articles regarding political issues have received attention.
Comments on these articles show that even though readers disagree and sometimes become angry over differing opinions, they nonetheless care enough but to get involved in the discussion and to further the ideas that they are most passionate about.
We have shown our resilience as a nation with the reawakening of a more participatory democracy and involved electorate, which we should continue as we move into our positions as leaders of the future.
We the people do not need to all agree on every issue, or even get through a political debate with a friend without yelling and screaming.
As long as we care enough to disagree and voice our concerns, there is always the chance for progress and improvement. That is the greatest form of patriotism that we could ask for.
Sarah Cueva is a sophomore majoring in political science. Her point runs Fridays.
Low voter turnout does not by any means reflect satisfaction with the political/governmental state of affairs. Other factors, all a good deal less-comfortable, produce the same result.
Perhaps first is a lack of choice/information: prospective voters regard (with much reason) all contending candidates as crooks or agents of narrow interests, and their campaign promises as lies and deceptions.
Second is the unlikelihood that one’s own, single vote has any chance of influencing results, especially when so few others are voting for reasons other than (for example) being on the candidate’s payroll in one way or another.
Finally, thanks to the War on Drugs and the minimum wage, a growing portion of the populace CAN’T vote because either they are convicted felons or they are illegal aliens (working illegally for illegal rates of pay).