Get Active

WE'VE ALL HAD the experience: you sit down to eat dinner with some people you have just met and begin a seemingly innocuous conversation about the state of the world. Pretty soon you learn not only that your tablemates hold views wildly different from your own, but also that they are offended and outraged by your opinions. In five minutes, a pleasant meal has deteriorated into a full-blown war of words.

When this happens to me, I generally find myself initiating a rear-guard recovery with phrases like, "Gee, I never really looked at it that way" and excuse myself as quickly as possible by running off to a ficticious section meeting or non-existent social obligation. It used to be an unwritten rule that sex, religion, and politics were never to be discussed at the table, but nowadays these subjects make the bulk of conversation. If they were banned from Harvard dining halls, we'd all be sitting in silence.

SO AS LONG as were stuck with talking about potentially volatile topics, it seems unavoidable that people will get testy at times. In a sense, we should be grateful to get by with an occasional hostile glare or caustic remark; at least we don't have to suffer the intolerance characteristic of of more unstable parts of the world, where the most convincing rhetorical arguments are those backed up by automatic weapons.

In fact, it is one of the greatest attributes of the American political system that, on the whole, people just don't care that much. People may hold widely different opinions on a given topic, but if they lose an argument, they more or less leave it at that.

Of course, apathy can be a bad as well as a good thing. When it allows dissenters to peaceably acquiece to the decision of the majority, it is a good thing. When it keeps voters away from the polls or prevents them from taking action against flaws in the system, it is obviously a detriment. Unfortunately, America is subject to both kinds of apathy. While there are probably fewer terrorist groups per capita than in most other countries, there are also lower voter turnouts at elections.

Although it may sound overly jingoistic, the apathy of the American populace is due to its satisfaction with its political system. Because our political spectrum is one of the narrowest in the world, debates tend to focus on very similar options--for example, whether to increase or decrease nuclear weapon funding, rather than whether or not to abolish nuclear weapons entirely. Thus, supporters of one side of an argument don't stand to lose very much in the event of defeat.

By the same token, however, it is difficult to generate public interest in debates which are perceived as being unimportant. If a majority of voters neglected to log in at the voting booths in the 1984 presidential election, it is probably because of the overwhelming similarity between Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale; the biggest issue debated was whether or not to raise taxes, not exactly a life-or-death matter.

Ideally, the American populace ought to be informed, interested, and yet unemotional about its political issues. For a democracy to function, its citizens must care enough to participate but must be willing to defer to the wisdom of the majority. Of course, we do not live in an ideal world, and whatever cause holds our attention must necessarily hold our emotional interest as well. What we must guard against, then, is letting our emotions rather than our intellect guide us.

OCCASIONALLY a cause comes along which holds enough emotional appeal to spur a wave of political involvement; the most recent example is the divestment issue. People start to care about politics, and they subsequently lose their apathy. But as they abandon the negative side of apathy, they sometimes also lose the positive side--tolerance for opposing viewpoints. Lately the strategies used by the proponents of divestiture have become increasingly centered on too-bad-if-you-disagree tactics such as the building of shanties in the Yard. Focus has thus shifted from trying to inform the public of the facts to trying to force the administration's hand with lists of demands.

In this way a cause which has great potential for raising the political awareness of the student body can run the risk of generating nothing more than unproductive belligerence, contributing to the deterioration of the political climate. No cause is so important that tolerance of opposing views should be abandoned. We must try to suppress our emotions.

If you disagree with this editorial, let me know. Stand up on a soapbox and denounce my logic. If you really can't control yourself, come and discuss it with me. But please, please don't build towers in protest of this editorial in my common room. Don't get mad; get active.