The CMC community must re-commit itself to constructive dialogue.
(Credit: Anibal Ortiz)
Like many of you, I chose CMC because of its commitment to freedom of expression, viewpoint diversity, and constructive dialogue. CMC continually achieves a high free-speech ranking and promotes effective conversations through organizations like the Athenaeum, the Open Academy and the Dreier Roundtable. At CMC, I have felt empowered to embrace controversial opinions. That changed last week.
This election was a shock. I believe that Donald Trump lacks the character to be president and that his victory will severely harm America’s civic culture and international reputation. Not supporting him was an easy decision. That said, I am incredibly disheartened with the way many of my peers have responded to this outcome.
Last Wednesday, many CMCers reposted spiteful Instagram messages, saying, “If you voted for Trump, I want nothing to do with you,” “Trump supporters are disgusting,” or “If you voted for Trump, unfollow me.” Others added their own invectives: “Who do you think you are,” “You are the scum of this country.”
I also reposted something last Wednesday, “No matter who is president, Jesus is King.” 25 of my peers had unfollowed me by the next day. One Instagram follower responded, “Is this a joke?” I imagine some of my peers, mistakenly believing that all Christians support Trump, misinterpreted this post as a glorification of the President Elect. In fact, the post was meant to do the opposite, reminding us to love our neighbors, even when we disagree with them.
In my public policy class’s election debrief that evening, our professor asked why we thought Trump won. As the class gave their answers - economic malaise, Harris’s lack of time, Biden’s unpopularity - I noticed a group of classmates making smug, repugnant facial expressions whenever someone answered. When it was their turn to talk, they insisted that Trump won because his supporters were determined to amplify racism and misogyny. “Perhaps racism and sexism played a role for some voters,” our professor responded. “It’s not a ‘perhaps,’” they snapped back, “America hates women so much, they’d rather have a rapist as the president than a woman of color.” A tense, uncomfortable silence fell over the class.
Later in the discussion, another classmate specifically accused me of condoning racism and misogyny because I went to an election watch party for Republican interns. Though the person later sincerely apologized, this episode reflects a broader problem with political discourse in the CMC community. These classmates halted our productive discussion, made the class feel uncomfortable, and made me feel alienated. They seemed to think that whoever was daring enough to challenge their opinions only disagreed because they were racist and misogynistic, too.
After class, I asked those same classmates to talk. They were reluctant at first but agreed. “You say you didn’t vote for him, but going to that party does just as much damage as voting for him,” they criticized, “Men who respect women don’t even pretend to support a rapist… It’s embarrassing for you.” They clearly equated support for President Trump with bigotry and were upset that I didn’t wholeheartedly agree.
Based on the media’s portrayal of Trump voters, my classmates may have good reason to think all his supporters are misogynist, racist, and homophobic. Some of them certainly are. But when I told my classmates about my black, gay, and female coworkers on Capitol Hill who are ecstatic about the President Elect, my peers were too stubborn and upset to even continue the conversation.
To say that Trump retook the White House because America is full of bigots is false. Trump won a majority of the popular vote in the most racially diverse electorate ever, he improved his margin with women by 14 percentage points, he won a majority of native-American voters, and he almost completely broke Democrats’ longstanding grip on Latino voters. Almost every poll showed the economy was the most important issue to voters. If working and middle class voters cannot afford groceries, they certainly cannot afford to be single issue voters for social justice.
When my peers struggle to acknowledge women and people of color who prioritized a different issue in this election, they dismiss the concerns of millions of minority voters. Some also posited baseless racial theories that women voted for President Trump because “white women hate black women,” or that minorities voted red because they were chasing the “whiteness they crave.”
I’m not sharing these experiences to complain. Instead, I’m calling out my peers for exacerbating a parasitic problem in American civic society: the impulse to villainize the opposition.
This approach is wrong. By making broad and unfair assumptions about the motives of Trump voters, they make these voters feel alienated. We have to disagree better. As students at an institution whose mission is to prepare us for thoughtful and productive lives, we have an obligation to be better than the hateful and divisive rhetoric consuming our civic discourse. We must own our role as mediators, push others to acknowledge opposing perspectives, and be extremists for compromise. Because a future without compromise is a dark one.
Comments