Friday night, a night that for most relieves the stress of homework, classes, and meetings and begins a two-day hiatus that typically revolves around partying. This past Friday was needless to say, atypical, considering the dreary delouse that engulfed State College.
In a change of plans, attempting at all costs to avoid any contact with the rain, I chose to stay within the confines of my apartment complex, which surprisingly had enough jubilation to entertain me for the evening.
When the almost inevitable conversation involving politics arouse between a neighbor and me, I hesitated, knowing he was a devout Republican, whereas I am a liberal.
While we began discussing our various standpoints, I realized that we were breaking into almost uncharted territories for our demographic. Two different people with two drastic ideas of how our country should be run somehow maintained a civilized conversation even under the effects of alcohol.
We both listened to what one another had to say, and gave justification as to why we felt the way we did, without ever losing our temper or offending the other. There was only one mundane detail that seemed to alter my concentration from the topics at hand. My friend began a sentence with, "As a Republican...,' and without hesitation I asked him to rephrase his statement as "In my opinion..." in the attempt to avoid stereotyping his thoughts into the realm of a political party.
Our conversation managed to work because we both stood back and listened to one another as individuals rather than people that belonged to a specific group with specific beliefs.
Last week a visit made by Teresa Heinz Kerry brought out an interesting side to many students. Most that attended had a preference of parties or at least a strong belief on many issues, and managed to make that quite evident.
As Americans, part of the luxury of the First Amendment, is to write, say and express pretty much anything we choose to, peacefully. The atmosphere that overwhelmed the vicinity of the Schwab Auditorium was in my opinion, anything but.
As much as it made me feel proud that so many students were choosing to take an active part in such an important election, many chose to do so in a far from peaceful way.
It was beyond my comprehension as to why individuals would forcefully express their opinion to people who knowingly felt quite the opposite. Did they hope to sway our opinions?
Personally being yelled at by a gentleman in a cowboy hat holding a sign that stated: "How can you be both Catholic and pro-choice?" sign is not my idea of an intense political debate. Although I might add, that there was a certain amount of excitement involved, as if the Sox had just beaten the Yanks in the World Series, naturally there is going to be aggression, but why?
I may be alone in thinking this, but it seems to me that our nation would be much better off without the masking of political parties. What if people merely felt how they felt and candidates were forced to give in their own words their feelings on each individual topic, instead of people relying on just the basis of what party that individual belongs to.
Would that not put in end to judging people based on their affiliation?
There could be no: "you are a Republican, you feel this way..." There would be a level of interrogation (or rather a civilized conversation) that would need to occur with whoever is engaging in political debates, whether it is candidates or average citizens discussing current events.
Perhaps this would lead to a more peaceful forum for discussion.
I can dream can't I?
Yes, the First Amendment grants us the capabilities to express our opinions, but let us not forget that we are a country unified under democracy, liberty and under 'one God' (which will be tackled in a future column).
We are not two ideologies at war with one another. We, as United States' citizens and architects of democracy, are attempting to continually establish a country that provides and serves every individual with equal opportunities and rights.
