Last week, fellow writer Brandon Brooks criticized public support for ideologues on either side of the political spectrum in his op-ed “On the importance of moderates.” Brooks lays out an argument I have heard over and over when discussing elections with my peers: certain politicians should not be taken seriously because their proposals are not viable in the current climate of congressional politics (i.e., Bernie Sanders and his notorious single payer healthcare plan). Brooks then concludes by urging his readers to support centrist candidates and policies because “our nation’s most revolutionary legislation has always enjoyed bipartisan support.”
My objective is not to lambast the quality or accuracy of Brooks’ article; it is well-researched and presents an argument people can easily get behind, regardless of their political affiliation. However, this article reveals a fact that needs to be addressed: the American people are deeply cynical about the American political conversation, which I believe is the single greatest hindrance to social progress.
Brooks implores his readers to abstain from the mindset of “political revolution,” because the House of Representatives (with its 95 percent incumbency rate) does not deal in the business of changing the status quo. This is certainly accurate; representatives are beholden to party and lobby interests, as well as those of their individual constituencies, and are therefore highly suppressive of “revolutionary” proposals. But why does Brooks stop here? Why are so many of my peers locked into this apathetic acceptance of a broken system?
The truth is people would rather sit back and let the government run itself than put any real effort into the political process. Our country may not be the ideal image of democracy, but at the very least it has endowed its people with the tools of democracy at their disposal; the problem is that we aren’t using them. Congress isn’t hopelessly gridlocked because it’s supposed to be. Congress is gridlocked because most people aren’t voting, or if they are, far too many vote with Brooks’ mentality: that certain candidates (be it former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Gov. John Kasich [R-OH] or any moderate candidate in a congressional race) at least have a chance of passing the legislation they propose.
Yet, even if this mindset is logical, so many of our systems remain broken and inferior to our economic contemporaries because our government simply does not operate in the interest of majority opinions. Far more than 50 percent of Americans believe in climate change (it irritates me just to use the word “believe” at this point). A majority of the American population supports a Medicare-for-all system, and over 60 percent believe that public collegiate education should be debt free. Is it fair, then, to call Sanders overly ideological or non-viable when he is merely vocalizing ideas that most people agree with?
I have faith that most people who care whatsoever about their government can look at it and recognize that it is seriously flawed. Climate change is a real and serious threat. Healthcare should undoubtedly be a right to every citizen in the richest country in the world. Education needs to be an environment for unadulterated intellectual growth, not a crushing economic burden to the lower and middle class. We need to look at our federal government as an extension of our voices, not as a distant circus that can’t be fixed, or as an entity that is best run by people who have a vested interest in keeping it the same.
I know moderates and political-abstainers (who I contest are essentially the same) do not think the world is perfect, but it is impossible to streamline positive change in this nation when people insist on sitting on the fence between right and wrong. And if you do want this nation to progress in a positive fashion, go vote. Go petition to the government to impose term limits on elected representatives. Go picket your state legislature until it stops unfairly gerrymandering your district. Go organize your peers to protest your school’s financial aid system. And finally, come to terms with the fact that all of our problems are a result of your own apathy, not the people we put into office. We all learned about the bystander effect in school; to all of my “moderate” peers out there, I encourage you to look in the mirror and see if you’re any different.
Ryan Gorman is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at r.gorman@cavalierdaily.com.
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.
