Two weeks ago, Gray Whisnant published an op-ed in The Cavalier Daily entitled “Paul Ryan is just as dangerous as Trump.” The article is just as offensive to the average (particularly non Trump supporting) Republican as it sounds. Whisnant’s article is a microcosm of why Trump won and why he’ll win again in 2020 if liberals keep it up this way.
Whisnant’s article is a partisan puff piece. All it seeks to do is prove that Republican’s ultimate goal is a “frontal assault on America’s most vulnerable.” Liberals will read it and be happy, conservatives may read it — if they have the stomach to get past the title — and be angry. From the title on, there was a zero percent chance the article could lead to a constructive conversation.
A refusal to engage with the other side on an empathetic and intellectual level is the problem in politics today. Whisnant, and many other liberals, refuse to even consider any legitimate reason a Republican could say, want to reform Obamacare, or say, cut taxes for not only the less wealthy but also the rich, beyond the fact that the Republican party’s existence is nothing but “an affront to basic decency.” Rather than trying to actually understand why someone might think differently than him but still somehow not be a completely evil person, Whisnant is happy to sanctimoniously preach from his soap box, offering about two sentences each on complex issues from Obamacare to taxation which prove, apparently inarguably, that the Republican party is nothing but “soulless careerists” with bad intentions.
We've reached the point in this whole post-election mess where it needs to be asked of Whisnant and the many who think like him: are you against Trump or are you against the entire Republican Party? And by against I don't mean disagree with, have ideological differences with or vote against. Disagreement is, of course, not only a normal but a crucial part of a functioning democracy. But rather I mean against as 'view as so intent on enacting deliberately malicious policy that you'll do everything possible to remove said individual from office and attempt to block any and every thing they propose while in said office.'
If you truly believe Trump is an unprecedented threat to democracy and individual rights, if you believe this is the point that's going to be recorded in history books as the beginning of the crumbling of the United States or if you believe we can't "normalize" him as a lot of liberal papers have insisted, we cannot engage in a productive conversation — this also includes not normalizing Trump by lumping him with all Republican politicians. Campaign and vote against them, oppose their bills if you disagree with the policy of course, but don't talk about wanting to impeach every powerful Republican. That's not removing a demagogue and that's not saving our democracy. That's partisanship. That's the kind of rhetoric that turns the Trump phenomenon into politics as usual: Republicans versus Democrats.
We have to distinguish between opposition to Trump and opposition to the Republican Party. You can win over Republicans and still be against Trump. We saw all the Republican defectors in the election this year (myself included) and the many more begrudging, half-hearted endorsements. But if your base excludes Trump supporters by definition and all Republicans, we cannot join you, we will become further entrenched in his camp and ever further away from yours, and Democrats will lose even more spectacularly in future elections than they did in 2016.
Ali Hiestand is a third-year College student and chair of the College Republicans.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Big donors are dominating the Board of Visitors
By Ryan Williams | 2 days agoSuch appointments being dictated by connections and donations creates a Board composed of big donors instead of members passionate about University goals.
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | 6 days agoThe University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
