COLUMN: The War on Politics

From Mike Nadel's "Give 'em Hell," Fall '95 From Mike Nadel's "Give 'em Hell," Fall '95 On Monday night the members of the Student Activities Council made a dangerous and self-defeating mistake. They voted to declare The Red and Blue a political organization. Political organizations are not eligible to be funded by SAC. The issue that representatives were voting on was not whether the century-old magazine should receive funding. Funding is a privilege, not a right. SAC would have been within its authority not to grant The Red and Blue's $11,000 request because it felt this request was excessive. This, however, is not what happened. In what amounted to a vindictive fury over an article about the U.S. policy towards Haiti that was published in October, members sought and found what has become a very effective way of punishing speech: They branded it "political." The Red and Blue is not a political organization. They represent no particular ideology. It is often called "conservative." Every conservative I know objects to this association. Neither political party would wish to be identified with the magazine. The simple fact is this: The article about Haiti in the October issue of The Red and Blue was the only article in the whole magazine that dealt with politics. Twenty-four pages; only one article about politics. How can that possibly be called political? That argument was never made on Monday night, because debate was cut off before there was an opportunity to make it. As a result, SAC has now set a standard which will threaten many of its groups. The Lesbian Gay Bisexual Alliance is primarily a social group. Yet they take a position in favor of kicking ROTC off campus, thus rendering them political by SAC's new standard and necessitating that they lose funding. In last fall's twelve-page issue of Generation XX, the campus women's magazine, one paragraph of an article urged readers to write their Congressmen. Now they may face a loss of funding. This is even more unfortunate because the editors of Generation XX voted responsibly at SAC on Monday. Among the many programs on UTV13 is Frontline. Each Thursday night for half an hour, three white male conservatives, myself included, argue positions on various political issues. Even though UTV13 also airs sports and business talk shows, nightly news broadcasts and the ever-popular Lifeforms puppet show, doesn't the presence of Frontline require that SAC cut off the cash-flow to UTV13? Certainly Dessaline, the Haitian students group, is political because they plastered the campus with posters contradicting the article in The Red and Blue that started all this. The United Minority Council, the Black Student League, Students for Asian Affairs –– all take political positions. Ironically, they all voted that The Red and Blue is political. Of course, in reality, these groups need not worry. The members of SAC weren't really interested in establishing a new principle. They were interested in silencing The Red and Blue and cutting off debate as quickly as possible so they could go home and study for their midterms. In the interest of expediency, SAC disregarded its own constitution. It was an act of tremendous irresponsibility, and it speaks volumes about the need for student government reform. More than that, though, the events surrounding this controversy ought to serve as a warning. At this University and in this country, there is a war on political discourse. Instead of having substantive debate on the merits of positions, we engage in ad hominim personal attacks, we impugn motives, or we shut off discussion altogether. Examples are everywhere. Republicans in Congress want to have the states decide how to spend money for nutrition and school lunch programs. President Clinton thinks this is a bad idea. But instead of allowing for the possibility of honest disagreement, Clinton declared last weekend that the Republicans are conducting a "war on children." Tuesday, a poll released showed that most Americans believe politicians "don't care about people like them." We eliminate the possibility that they might have genuine differences over what's best for the country. Such conflict is dismissed as "partisanship." In student government, Dan Debicella argues that what has killed this year's Undergraduate Assembly has been too much "politics." In other words, there wasn't always consensus behind what he wanted to do. Letters to the editor routinely call members of the UA "rZsumZ builders." Such letters do not allow for the chance that many of these people, however powerless, may actually want to make life better for students at the University. The press aids in this assault on discourse. A headline in Monday's DP read, "Debate hinders UA meeting." How can debate hinder a meeting? Isn't it better to argue about an issue before making a hasty judgment that is regretted later? On the Internet late Sunday night, Brennan Mulligan complained about a black sorority making noise on Superblock. Instead of defending the activities of the sorority, Dan Chen wrote back that Mulligan, who is black, had been "in the house" too long and had forgotten what it was like "in the fields." Basically, Chen called Mulligan an Uncle Tom. And now SAC has declared war on The Red and Blue and all things political. Politics is not something worthy of our hate. Politics is neither evil manipulation nor mindless bickering. Political Science Professor Ian Lustick defines politics as "the consequential competition over valued things." We need such competition. It is what holds society together. Rather than seeking to destroy it, we should foster it. And as for politicians, we need them too. They are the competitors. The life of a politician, as Allen Drury writes, is a rough life, but one capable of honor. So when we get back from spring break, let's remember that. Let's ease the questioning of the motives of our leaders. Let's stop trying to silence those who we disagree with. And then let's get back to work. There is a lot to do.