No, This is Not 1934

The presidential election season is upon us once again! Every four years we experience lively political discourse, televised debates and the exchange of policy ideas. Any time we turn on the radio (yes, some of us still get our news through the radio) or television, we constantly hear about and see the lives of a select few who decide to run for the position of leader of the free world. Social media such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube have become not only a medium for entertainment, but also one for politics (I never thought I would see the day that Snapchat would be openly utilized by politicians, but here we are). Of the vast number of candidate who initially entered the race, we are left with five main candidates: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kasich. From an anecdotal account, as well as from the polls sent out by email from The College Voice to the students here at Connecticut College, the overwhelming majority of students lean toward the side of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, with the next in line being Donald Trump. The rational behind this trend varies among students, some focusing more on foreign policy, some on economic policy and some on social issues. However, many people seem to take issue with Mr. Trump specifically. In my experience here, I have witnessed numerous instances where students and teachers move right past disagree- ing with his policies and instead go straight for his character and morality. This is the phenomenon that will be largely focused on in this article, so if politics or other points of view are an upsetting or tender subject, this might not be your favorite section.
Around college campuses we have students (as well as professors) campaigning for their choice of who should hold this all-important job of serving as the face of the country. In addition to on- line donations and plugs, there are posters, bumper stickers, shirts, computer stickers, phone cases, you name it – all with creative slogans and the candidates’ names. Along with the campaigning and
supporting of candidates, they also denounce and attack their opponents. For me, this is what has changed the most when the issue of politics comes up. Often times, discussions on policy and position turns into swearing, hurt feelings and character attacks. Focusing
in more on the “Trump phenomenon,” media from all sides have spearheaded attacks on his campaign. Trump is now unique in that the left and the right both take issue with his message and stance. Disagreeing with him is fine (and in many cases understandable), but when people debate issues other than policy, political debates erode into nothing but a flinging of insults and name-calling. There are several instances I have seen when discussions are skipped altogether on this campus. From yard signs supporting Mr. Trump being thrown away or vandalized at the Ridges, to events
on campus talking about people being “Stumped by Trump,” the default view is seemingly to hate the guy, not his specific ideas. In some cases, I believe people go too far in their attacks. The most troubling comparison I have heard is the one of Donald Trump, a businessman-turned-populist candidate, to Adolf Hitler, the leader of the Nazi party who led an ex- termination of over eleven million human beings. No, this was not said in a moment of anger by a select few. Many networks, including CNN, the Huffington Post, NPR and the New York Times to name a few, have exposed this notion. Some on campus seem to have taken up this idea and have run with it. In two of my classes I have heard this view expressed, which leads me to strongly believe it goes on in other classes as well. Taking a class focusing solely on the Holocaust, I have found that there are a couple things that are simply disgusting about this comparison. This class is in fact one of the classes in which the comparison came up, but luckily it was handled reasonably and the topic was changed quickly. I did speak with the professor after- wards to voice my concerns about this. I was met with agreement and an understanding about how the comparison can cause issues for certain students present in
that discussion. In several other classes I have taken, however, I have seen professors bash other political opinions and watched the class laugh and cheer.
First and foremost, making comparisons to the Holocaust,
an event in which millions upon millions of people were singled out due to certain traits or beliefs and then tortured and killed, is simply something no one should do. Many scorn Trump’s more extreme positions, such as a temporary ban on Muslims who are un- able to be vetted prior to entering the United States from war torn areas, or how he advocates on de- porting the millions of people who entered the United States illegally. Although controversial, they do not compare to hunting down people and intentionally sending them to their deaths. When this topic of Nazis or Hitler is brought up so casually, it causes desensitization to this tragic historical event. It is also insulting to the millions of victims who were killed, to have their sacrifices invoked for such a relatively trivial manner. This desensitization must never happen because, if it does, and something that does indeed match Hitler’s level of evil comes along, we will have “cried wolf” so many times that the level of peril will not be truly understood.
The second reason this is just not an acceptable tactic is that it ends any conversation. Commonly, those who go straight for the character bash are not informed on specific policies and events. Rather, they have listened to a
lot of Daily Show and read some Facebook posts. The online poll- ing shows that, though not a large majority, there is a good number on this campus who support Mr. Trump, or are not sure whom they like. When these supporters (and even potential supporters) see students, professors and reading materials calling the extreme comparison to Hitler, does that make them Nazis for disagreeing? The answer is no, it does not. It makes them human for having a point of view of their own, and too many times have I witnessed students draw comparisons similar to this in class as a copout for either not supporting the candidate or not knowing any specifics. Sitting by two people in Harris one afternoon, I heard the words “Trump” and “Bernie.” How could I not listen in? What I heard was two people with very differing opinions talk about their reasoning on why they liked certain candidates and were dissuaded by others. One of the students brought up the language used by Trump to describe Mexican immigrants and how it was offensive and had no place in politics. He believed it is wrong to categorize a large group of people by the actions of some and explained that this creates fear. The other person acknowledged this language as offensive, but stated the “anti-PC” route Trump typically takes is what draws so many to him. He described how the language of politicians today is basically incomprehensible and on that they both agreed. As I left, I apologized for eavesdropping and told them how much hearing that meant to me. This is the kind of conversation I hope to hear in class and around campus because it shows that it is possible to respect other opinions while still disagreeing. Attempting to take the moral high ground in a debate leads to condescending talking points that do not form any sort of counter argument. When emotions get involved, rational thinking usually goes out the window.
Although less frequent, conversations such as these seem more productive, and at least friendlier, than most political discussions I’ve witnessed. Donald Trump, a former reality television member, is a seemingly populist candidate who says what is on his mind without second thought. Scrutinizing controversial comments he makes (and there are plenty of them) allows for discussions on a wide array of topics. Simply reaching for extreme comparisons to specific instances or stating he is awful, stupid, or mean is a technique used to silence opposition.
Now, being a lover of liberty and free speech, I am not saying all of this because I want to silence anyone who disagrees with me. Quite the opposite. Tell me when you disagree with me and explain why with facts and strategies. Do not simply insult or question my character or intelligence. Accusations of racism, sexism, any –ism, are not rebuttals for a person’s stance on an issue. Isn’t the point of a debate or discussion to teach and learn different ideas? Or at the least, when you think someone is wrong, don’t you want to prove him or her wrong and show why you are right? How is that done when using character attacks or moral questioning? •