I never post anything
Except this. Ok so, there's this conservative magazine on campus (the only one in fact) that's famous for it's offensive content and basic rudeness and disrespect for anybody who doesn't agree with them. But I read it anyway since I think it's important to be informed about what people think when it's different from what I think. Anyway, this most recent issue made me a lot less mad than it usually does, so I submitted this response to the campus overall newspaper to bring some attention to it.
A Renaissance for Democracy
Anybody who knows anything about the Primary Source and the recent controversies surrounding the contents of the magazine (read: every Tufts student) should really pick up a copy of the most recent issue that came out last Wednesday, and read it cover to cover. People only seem to speak up about this controversial magazine in the Daily or in other similarly ubiquitous campus media outlets when its unique combination of mindless recitation of neoconservative rhetoric, disregard for the feelings of minority groups of various persuasions, and attention-starved shock tactics amount to something offensive enough that we liberals feel that we may be able to finally use the bias incident du jour to rid our classically small liberal-arts college campus of the minor yet insistent group of conservatives that won’t shut up, despite our best efforts to make them go away through the silent treatment. But I have something very different to say about them today.
Any reader who knows me personally will vouch for me as an ACLU card-carrying, global warming-warning, Dennis Kucinich-supporting, gladly-taxpaying-to-support-social-programming Liberal. Yet I still do have one or two friends who have written for the Primary Source, and each time one of the magazine’s articles or joke pages crosses the line, I have of course sought them out and posed that most poignant of inquiries that is on the mind of every levelheaded individual who looked at this questionable content: “What the hell were you thinking?”
The answer does not vary from person to person. I have heard multiple conservatives supporting or writing for the Primary Source say the same thing every time. The argument is something like this: “If we don’t do things that are radical and shocking, nobody on this campus will pay any attention to us.” I have always responded to them in the same way: the reason why nobody pays any attention to you is because every time they hear about you it’s as a direct result of some very offensive insensitivity. If you keep this up, then your point of view will be more than unnoticed: it will be categorically rejected and reviled, whether you were trying to offend somebody at the time or not. I didn’t have the heart to mention what they already basically knew: the Primary Source is pretty much regarded as a joke on campus, if not a dangerous publication that should be stopped. I didn’t think they’d ever listen to me, and eventually one day they would go too far and get shut down.
But this issue, let me tell you some things you’re going to find in the Source that may surprise you, given their reputation and history. On page 5, they print a dissenting response to an article from the last issue, with no accompanying attempt to lampoon the reader or get in the last word. Page 6 holds a criticism of Ann Coulter and other conservative pundits for the way they are currently conducting their careers. Page 16 begins a long article that very respectfully treats the issue of affirmative action-to me indicating that the opinions of the staff about these policies have not changed, but their attitude towards discussing the matter has. Page 18 is a thoughtful analysis of the dilemma facing Democrats over which candidate to field for the Presidency of the United States. Page 19 is a discussion of the way abortion rights have recently been featured in popular media-without the characteristic unwavering call for a total ban.
This issue doesn’t contain purposeful attempts at offending Muslims, gays, or African-Americans. It doesn’t call for blind support of Bush administration policies or for unconditional and unjustified regression to medieval interrogation methods. I’m not saying it’s perfect. There are still a couple of really bad jokes, but they’re mixed in with liberal amounts of honestly self-deprecating humor as well. And I’d be lying if I said I thought they were all of a sudden journalistically immaculate… the closing article covers the recent multitude of media sources claiming the country is in a recession, but its main argument relies on data whose source remains a mystery (and I’ve heard reports from actual analysts that contradict some of the facts that are cited.) But for a publication with such a mottled track record as the Source, I think this represents a great leap in the right direction, and the editorial staff is to be highly commended for their efforts.
Maybe it’s something in the air these days. Perhaps it’s the political climate these days, what with both parties finding themselves unable to apply the same old rhetoric to a fractured, complex landscape of opinion and being forced to look at what their constituents actually have to say about what they want. Maybe whoever began the tradition of publishing the Primary Source in their native language (vitriol) graduated, leaving a new generation of editors to shape the magazine in a way they personally felt to be appropriate. Either way, I believe that the last issue of the Primary Source finally represents what a responsible conservative voice on campus can do for our intellectual lives.
But the ball is now in the court of campus liberals. Honestly, they’ve got us now. Because for the last few years, we’ve been able to take the only conservative publication on campus and say, “I don’t have to listen to what they think because they’re a bunch of mean bigots and they’re being rude.” Unfortunately for us, one simply can’t do that with the new Source. They’ve got a couple of really decent arguments in this issue that should give pause to anyone calling himself a liberal.
So this is my call to anyone who has been offended by the Source in the past: however difficult it may be, try to put the pain and the bitter division behind you and pick up a copy, giving the authors a blank slate on any previous offenses, perceived or actual. Assume that the authors are honestly just trying to put forth an alternative viewpoint, and respond with the attitude of someone who wants to work with them to come to an agreement. Let’s argue, not fight. If you know somebody who has conservative views that you usually avoid engaging in political discussion for that reason, take the first step and gently bring up one of the articles. Each of you can see what the other side really thinks. If you don’t have any conservative friends you can think of, get a liberal buddy and read the Source together. Try this exercise: discuss exactly why you don’t agree with points in the articles, but do it without using negative adjectives or resorting to derisive snorts, to prove to yourself that you are really taking the other viewpoint seriously.
I think we have an opportunity to make a significant change to the atmosphere of political discourse at this university. I hope that in the next few years we can, working together, change the atmosphere of enmity that exists between the members of liberal and conservative political groups on campus, and switch the dialogue from one in which each party ignores the other, until somebody goes too far, to one in which there is purposeful and constant engagement, to prevent angry outbreaks.
I never thought I’d say this… but thank you, Primary Source, for taking the first step and trying to work with a different tone. You are closer now than you have ever been to deserving your motto: “Veritas Sine Dolo,” rather than its reverse. My fervent hope is that we liberals will be deserving of our name too, and accept your viewpoint as honestly offered and worthy of discussion and respectful response.
And that's how that one goes. I know it's a little kumbaya, but I really feel like the lying neoconservatives really are losing their grip on the people they've been misleading, and it's important to let them know that there are people here willing to pick up the pieces by actually listening to each other rather than singling out individual issues that get people that don't really agree to vote together anyway. Right? Kinda? Let me know what you think. Or don't. :)
A Renaissance for Democracy
Anybody who knows anything about the Primary Source and the recent controversies surrounding the contents of the magazine (read: every Tufts student) should really pick up a copy of the most recent issue that came out last Wednesday, and read it cover to cover. People only seem to speak up about this controversial magazine in the Daily or in other similarly ubiquitous campus media outlets when its unique combination of mindless recitation of neoconservative rhetoric, disregard for the feelings of minority groups of various persuasions, and attention-starved shock tactics amount to something offensive enough that we liberals feel that we may be able to finally use the bias incident du jour to rid our classically small liberal-arts college campus of the minor yet insistent group of conservatives that won’t shut up, despite our best efforts to make them go away through the silent treatment. But I have something very different to say about them today.
Any reader who knows me personally will vouch for me as an ACLU card-carrying, global warming-warning, Dennis Kucinich-supporting, gladly-taxpaying-to-support-social-programming Liberal. Yet I still do have one or two friends who have written for the Primary Source, and each time one of the magazine’s articles or joke pages crosses the line, I have of course sought them out and posed that most poignant of inquiries that is on the mind of every levelheaded individual who looked at this questionable content: “What the hell were you thinking?”
The answer does not vary from person to person. I have heard multiple conservatives supporting or writing for the Primary Source say the same thing every time. The argument is something like this: “If we don’t do things that are radical and shocking, nobody on this campus will pay any attention to us.” I have always responded to them in the same way: the reason why nobody pays any attention to you is because every time they hear about you it’s as a direct result of some very offensive insensitivity. If you keep this up, then your point of view will be more than unnoticed: it will be categorically rejected and reviled, whether you were trying to offend somebody at the time or not. I didn’t have the heart to mention what they already basically knew: the Primary Source is pretty much regarded as a joke on campus, if not a dangerous publication that should be stopped. I didn’t think they’d ever listen to me, and eventually one day they would go too far and get shut down.
But this issue, let me tell you some things you’re going to find in the Source that may surprise you, given their reputation and history. On page 5, they print a dissenting response to an article from the last issue, with no accompanying attempt to lampoon the reader or get in the last word. Page 6 holds a criticism of Ann Coulter and other conservative pundits for the way they are currently conducting their careers. Page 16 begins a long article that very respectfully treats the issue of affirmative action-to me indicating that the opinions of the staff about these policies have not changed, but their attitude towards discussing the matter has. Page 18 is a thoughtful analysis of the dilemma facing Democrats over which candidate to field for the Presidency of the United States. Page 19 is a discussion of the way abortion rights have recently been featured in popular media-without the characteristic unwavering call for a total ban.
This issue doesn’t contain purposeful attempts at offending Muslims, gays, or African-Americans. It doesn’t call for blind support of Bush administration policies or for unconditional and unjustified regression to medieval interrogation methods. I’m not saying it’s perfect. There are still a couple of really bad jokes, but they’re mixed in with liberal amounts of honestly self-deprecating humor as well. And I’d be lying if I said I thought they were all of a sudden journalistically immaculate… the closing article covers the recent multitude of media sources claiming the country is in a recession, but its main argument relies on data whose source remains a mystery (and I’ve heard reports from actual analysts that contradict some of the facts that are cited.) But for a publication with such a mottled track record as the Source, I think this represents a great leap in the right direction, and the editorial staff is to be highly commended for their efforts.
Maybe it’s something in the air these days. Perhaps it’s the political climate these days, what with both parties finding themselves unable to apply the same old rhetoric to a fractured, complex landscape of opinion and being forced to look at what their constituents actually have to say about what they want. Maybe whoever began the tradition of publishing the Primary Source in their native language (vitriol) graduated, leaving a new generation of editors to shape the magazine in a way they personally felt to be appropriate. Either way, I believe that the last issue of the Primary Source finally represents what a responsible conservative voice on campus can do for our intellectual lives.
But the ball is now in the court of campus liberals. Honestly, they’ve got us now. Because for the last few years, we’ve been able to take the only conservative publication on campus and say, “I don’t have to listen to what they think because they’re a bunch of mean bigots and they’re being rude.” Unfortunately for us, one simply can’t do that with the new Source. They’ve got a couple of really decent arguments in this issue that should give pause to anyone calling himself a liberal.
So this is my call to anyone who has been offended by the Source in the past: however difficult it may be, try to put the pain and the bitter division behind you and pick up a copy, giving the authors a blank slate on any previous offenses, perceived or actual. Assume that the authors are honestly just trying to put forth an alternative viewpoint, and respond with the attitude of someone who wants to work with them to come to an agreement. Let’s argue, not fight. If you know somebody who has conservative views that you usually avoid engaging in political discussion for that reason, take the first step and gently bring up one of the articles. Each of you can see what the other side really thinks. If you don’t have any conservative friends you can think of, get a liberal buddy and read the Source together. Try this exercise: discuss exactly why you don’t agree with points in the articles, but do it without using negative adjectives or resorting to derisive snorts, to prove to yourself that you are really taking the other viewpoint seriously.
I think we have an opportunity to make a significant change to the atmosphere of political discourse at this university. I hope that in the next few years we can, working together, change the atmosphere of enmity that exists between the members of liberal and conservative political groups on campus, and switch the dialogue from one in which each party ignores the other, until somebody goes too far, to one in which there is purposeful and constant engagement, to prevent angry outbreaks.
I never thought I’d say this… but thank you, Primary Source, for taking the first step and trying to work with a different tone. You are closer now than you have ever been to deserving your motto: “Veritas Sine Dolo,” rather than its reverse. My fervent hope is that we liberals will be deserving of our name too, and accept your viewpoint as honestly offered and worthy of discussion and respectful response.
And that's how that one goes. I know it's a little kumbaya, but I really feel like the lying neoconservatives really are losing their grip on the people they've been misleading, and it's important to let them know that there are people here willing to pick up the pieces by actually listening to each other rather than singling out individual issues that get people that don't really agree to vote together anyway. Right? Kinda? Let me know what you think. Or don't. :)