Politiks

via tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com
If Anna and Grace (foils of one another)
can work out their differences and work together,
so can we.

Ah politics . . . I had started this blog years ago to soak my feet into this foreign world (mind you I was definitely not a poli-sci major before law school like most people I know). As I progressed through law school and learned politics through the lectures of my professors and the insights of my classmates, I was rather fascinated at such prevalent topics with such polarizing sides. I loved that although every side had a compelling point of view in its own right, it was only through our own life experiences did we know exactly where we stood on certain issues. For example, I took a strong stance towards gay marriage and wrote an entry about it here (though perhaps rather not too eloquent now that I read it again) and an extensive article on the unconstitutionality of proposition 8 for my school journal two years later. Why? Because I have a great group of gay friends who I can't imagine not being able to cry at their weddings, merely because it's up to the majority of each state to decide whether or not they can or cannot consummate their love for each other. It's our life experience and upbringing that ultimately pulls us to the left or to the right on certain issues. I'm sure George Lakoff's "Moral Politics" can vouch for that (I oddly started this book before law school and never finished it . . .)

However, what has been turning me off about politics is the fact that heated arguments about certain topics have crossed boundaries and have become personal attacks on people, rather than their point of views. Example? Rush Limbaugh's "slut" comment directed at law student Sandra Fluke for her position on the contraceptives controversy. On a more microscopic level? The facebook comments I see on my my friend's statuses regarding the KONY 2012 campaign. Some defending the movement and others alleging it's a scam. This is fine because I was listening to NPR and it was refreshing to be presented with both sides of the issue - more informational and up to the listeners to decide, rather than a persuasive piece. However, back to the facebook comments, as I scrolled down discussions regarding this issue, some became heated attacks on the person - one person was calling the other person "uneducated" because he was at a community college, another person making general statements about ignorant Americans, and more people criticizing about how people are so dumb because they merely "watched" a 30 minute video and now think they're "social activists." Wow, just wow. This is so amature.

I wish politics was more about being able to present multiple sides of an issue, have people decide for themselves where they stand (after being as informed as possible of course) and stand up for those issues with an open mind of where the other person is coming from - and if they feel strongly about it, they can still present their case without having to bring the other person down. I'd say apply more of an European-like inquisitorial system, rather than an American-like adversarial system. It's like religion - just because I don't ascribe to your religion, does not make me a "lost soul." There are room for a multitude of beliefs and viewpoints and that's what makes our society so great! Sadly, we have a long way to go. . . My lesson? To be able to be passionate about certain issues and voice those opinions without losing ground by throwing dirt, the type that involves personal attacks.