College Republicans
The College Republicans at Harding are making us all dumber.
There is a sign that was put up all over the campus announcing the next CR meeting with the slogan “We’ll vote Democrat when they stop killing babies!!”
I think it is fair to say that few political issues are as nuanced as abortion. There are so many different factors at play and so many different arguments to be made for various degrees of state regulation. It is more comfortable for some people, though, to approach the issue with all the nuance of a caveman. Witness this further response from the CR facebook group:
David: “We’ll vote Democrat when they stop killing babies!!” It’s good to see that the College Republicans are committed to raising the intellectual bar of discourse to such an enlightened level.Peyton: David……sometimes the truth is very simple. Get over your intellectual tendencies and try to apply a little common sense from time to time.
Pete: peyton is right. good thing i put those fliers up.
God, save us all from the simple-minded. Abortion is too important of an issue to be decided by catch phrases and anti-intellectuals.
I’ll vote Republican when they stop having gay sex in men’s rooms.
..you owe me a new keyboard.
Huh?
Kyle: No you won’t.
David: To somebody that absolutely thinks its wrong, that’s as complicated as it needs to be. Quite frankly, I think the same way towards the anti-war crowd. I think war is a pretty complicated issue. However, if the entire concept of war is something that is wrong to you, you have a much greater tendency to say similar things.
Just because they say these things doesn’t mean they are dumb.
The fact that they demean David for his “intellectual tendencies” seems to me to imply that they don’t want to think critically about an issue, but only apply a black-white right-wrong label to every issue that comes their way. By appealing to “common sense” on an issue where there is no consensus and therefore no “sense” can be “common,” strictly speaking, they want to think with their gut, as Stephen Colbert would say. This drags down the level of discourse and makes everyone dumber. Anti-intellectualism is a stance that no thinking human being should condone, regardless of what your moral beliefs are.
The Bible doesn’t command you to not think.
When someone posts a funny on the internet (a post, a comment, etc.) and it causes the reader to spew coffee onto his keyboard/monitor/laptop, it is generally understood to be the fault of the poster of said funny, and therefore his or her responsibility to replace said keyboard/monitor/laptop.
Of course, this is never enforced.
I’m a poor law student, so you won’t get a new one from me. Sorry. Glad my comment was amusing, though.
Kyle: They aren’t against being intellectual. They are simply making fun of David (sorry David).
Quite frankly, I find a severe double standard in David’s criticisms of College Republicans and the “catch phrases” and blatant propaganda that comes from the democratic side. Only, the Republicans are the ones David disagrees with.
Both parties are severely guilty in what I perceive as anti-intellectualism. This is one reason why I hate parties.
Chris, it isn’t enough to just say that both parties are guilty and you hate them all. I looked around the campus today but I didn’t find any comparable poster anywhere that was similar to the College Republicans’.
I am also rather surprised to hear that you don’t find the position articulated by “Peyton” to be anti-intellectual. Peyton represents a cookie-cutter mold of religious conservatives that over-simplify the issue of abortion with phrases like “Democrats kill babies.” Not only is that kind of catch phrase unconducive to productive dialogue, it represents a view of reality that truly is anti-intellectual.
I said before that abortion is too complex and too nuanced to be reduced to a catch-all catch phrase. Just because someone believes that life begins at conception, it doesn’t mean that all dialogue ends there. Practically, we still have to talk about how we are going to regulate abortion and how we are going to attack the underlying societal causes of it.
You don’t need to defend that kind of view, Chris, because it doesn’t help the pro-life movement and it doesn’t help policymakers.
So, what would a better anti-abortion slogan be-one that would capture how complicated the issue is?
And if the Harding Democrats are not guilty of simplifying an issue, then they would be the first party organization in the history of the world not to do so. Parties naturally do this sort of thing because their purpose is not to educate someone about the intricacies of an issue. Their purpose is to get your vote.
My opinion on political parties stands.
1) I don’t think you’re getting it. Since I think that slogans are the problem, I clearly don’t think that the solution is to just “come up with a better one.” The solution is to set aside slogans and engage in real, constructive dialogue, recognizing the importance and complexity of a given issue (especially abortion).
2) What do you mean by “if?” It isn’t a matter of hypotheticals. You simply will not find Harding College Democrat posters that contain slogans comparable to the one that this post is about. There is no “if” involved.
How can I have any kind of constructive dialog with someone who starts the conversation by calling me a murderer?
A statement like that could only come from someone who viewed politics as a Stalinistic, zero-sum game.
Please note how deftly I avoided breaking Godwin’s Law and yet violated the spirit of the law at the same time…
It worked for Peter:
Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.”
I can actually picture the College Republicans viewing themselves as modern-day Peters declaring the word of God to the heathan with the help of the Holy Spirit.
After all, God is a Republican, right?
It the Holy Spirit’s helping ‘em, you might should listen.
What’s this got to do with voting democrat again? I’m sorry if I was lost amongst the idiocy.
As one who occasionally recieves payment for organizing and putting to good use young people of a liberal or “progressive” persuasion, let me state that I would love nothing more than to have said demographic be as single-minded and unthinking as the CRs. I’ve found that Harding CRs actually tend to be less extreme than those at other more liberal schools (especially on economic issues). I’m sure the mindless social conservatism is probably worse at Harding though. Actually social conservatives are quite rare at legitimate institutions of higher learning. That might have something to do with it being an utterly indefensible governing philosophy that falls apart in the face of actual open debate. Or not.
I find it highly unlikely that the “Holy Spirit’s helping ‘em.” At least not the Holy Spirit that I read about in my Bible.
s.c. – Here’s the start of the slightly OT line:
How can I have any kind of constructive dialog with someone who starts the conversation by calling me a murderer?
A statement like that could only come from someone who viewed politics as a Stalinistic, zero-sum game.
Name calling on either side of an
argument is not constructive.
Consider from your own site:
“We could learn a lot from his example as we tend to take our shots at other groups of people without looking at ourselves or taking a second to acknowledge the redeeming values and value of the other schools of thought.”
Calling a person’s point of view as anti-intellectual when they use clear language denigrating intellectualism is not name calling. Saying that the approach being used by the College Republicans is dragging down the level of discourse is not name calling. It is clear that the College Republicans do not want to have an intellectual debate, not on the morality of abortion, but on the role of government in regulating it. I could as easily call Republicans murderers because of their support for the death penalty and their dogged insistence on staying in Iraq. I don’t. It is far more productive to debate these issues on the merits. When the College Republicans turn the issue into a shouting match, they behave as idiots. They may be intelligent people, but when it comes to discussion and debate, they prefer to put their fingers in their ears and hurl insults at the other side. This behavior may be expected from a petulant 3 year old, but not from undergraduates. The other side won’t consider any other arguments and deride us for doing so. Such behavior can only be classified as idiocy.
It’s not name calling when you do it, but only when they do it. Now I understand.
There really is nothing better for the pro-choice crowd than abortion opponents using the “abortion is murder” line of argument. The overwhelming majority of Americans disagree with them, and harsh language like that is not going to change that. A more nuanced discussion might be better in your ivory towers of the liberal academy, but out here in the real America its just bad politics.
I am insulting their actions and the way they handle themselves in discussion. I would love nothing more than to engage these people in an intelligent discussion on the issues. It doesn’t happen though because they subscribe to a philosophy of anti-intellectualism. That’s not name calling. The manner in which the College Republicans comport themselves is reminiscent of a petulant child; I was not saying that they were petulant children, just that their actions resembled those of children. That’s not name calling. If I think a woman should be able to decide for herself whether or not to get an abortion, I have taken no act that should be characterized by any reasonable person as murder. If I was a doctor performing an abortion, it becomes a more reasonable thing to say, but not all Democrats are abortionists. I would even venture as far as to say that the overwhelming majority of people identifying themselves as Democrats are not abortionists. I am not calling anyone names. I simply describing the way their behavior looks to me. If you want to over-simplify that to name calling, then so be it.
You guys really do amaze me sometimes with what issues become controversial and highly-commented on.
I realize that the original post probably came across as relatively partisan, but I really thought that most partisans out there on both sides would join me in saying that it isn’t ideal or healthy to reduce complex issues to bumper stickers that stymie further dialogue.
But that’s okay. It shows that I am constantly learning more through this whole blogging thing.
It’s called idiosyncrasy or a way of thinking that is peculiar to an individual or group, especially an odd or unusual one. This would be the ultra-conservative, who might I add, are as bad as a ultra-liberal. The fact that one side will willing isolate another side, pairing them with one peculiar subject and holding them accountable to every little quirk and nuance is very close-minded and anti-intellectual.
To say that voting democrats is comparable to killing babies is a parallel that being a Christian and a democrat is dichotomous. It is plain dogma and quite offensive.
@Shannon: I am not “tak[ing]shots at other groups of people without looking at [myself] or taking a second to acknowledge the redeeming values and value of the other schools of thought.”
So, unless this other school of thought consists of portentous dispositions and eminent victory argumentations, then I am open to other structured and intellectual opinions. But this isn’t either. This is a “zero-sum” statement; this is a very unintelligent statement; and I find no worthiness and substance in its scope.
So, I ask again, what does this have to do with voting democrat?
More reasons why I loath labels.
David, thanks for posting the link to this post on my Facebook note. I enjoyed reading this and the comments that folloewd.
Shannon – one important difference between Peter and the CR is that the Jews were actually shouting, “Crucify Him” and giving hearty approval to the death of Christ. I don’t know any Democrats running for office who have a campaign slogan like, “Abort Them All!” The abortion debate is about the legality of a medical procedure that ends the life of an unborn child. Personally, I am pro-life and believe that the government should protect those unborn lives. However, those who disagree with me are not usually murderers. They are people who disagree with me about the legality of a certain action. The flier might have been appropriate if the Democrats were fielding a group of candidates all of whom were abortion doctors.