The first time I felt politically inadequate was during my second week of GW.
While talking to other freshmen – who were also worried about the nervous introductions that accompany the first few weeks of college life – I told them my major: English. And then they asked about my political stance.
I explained that I was a moderate.
“Moderates are bullshit," one student said. "You gotta choose one.”
Now that election season is underway, I’m reminded of that freshman year instance and how alienating political conversations here can be. In a single instant, the other student had completely written off my thoughts.
In the upcoming weeks, as red and blue signs plaster corridors around campus, we independents will put in our headphones and walk through November like any other month.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m planning to vote in the presidential election this November. I just don’t plan to wear my political persuasions on my sleeve. I may not rally in front of the White House or refresh Politico every 10 minutes for updates, but that doesn’t mean that my opinion is any less relevant.
Political involvement is not necessarily an indicator of social awareness. A Democratic or Republican candidate may stick to the party line, but when it comes to the issues, he or she may still be utterly disconnected from the concerns of followers and supporters. Independents, looking in from the sidelines, can offer unique and unbiased insight by voting based on issues instead of along party lines.
Above all else, I am bothered by the emptiness of political speeches. Politicians spit evasive answers to scripted questions. Mitt Romney refuses to release his tax returns. His reasoning?
“Our church doesn’t publish how much people have given,” he told Parade Magazine.
Political speeches are full of promises and crowd-pleasing gimmicks, but they are often devoid of any real information.
“What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply,” Barack Obama said in his inaugural address.
Call me a cynic, but I do not believe the state of political arguments will ever change. As long as there are political parties, there will be a constant tug-of-war that hinders progress.
But by rejecting opaque and meaningless political rhetoric, independents are able to judge the news objectively. We provide a balance in society. We are the bystanders who try to make sense of the tension between both sides. In a world of bias, we are the ones who maintain level heads and listen to all sides of an argument – not just the jargon of speechwriters.
Jacob Garber, a sophomore majoring in English, is a Hatchet columnist.
You sound like a real “moderate” — citing a comment by Romney as an example of an evasive answer, and then quoting Obama on what’s wrong with political rhetoric.
Mitt Romney has repeatedly answered questions about why he is only releasing the past couple of years of tax returns. You managed to find a bizarre response, in Parade Magazines (of all places), but his answer has been articulate (even if you disagree with it) elsewhere.
When I need to find out what’s going on in the world of politics…I reach for PARADE magazine. After I read about Romney, I found a great article about how to get rust stains off my kitchen counter with toothpaste, and a great recipe for canapés to serve to the guys for the next football game.
Try some real sources- CNN, Wall Street Journal, NY Times, Washington Post, Time magazine, FOX News, whatever.
PS: Ron Paul isn’t going to win.
Nice job, Mr. Garber. Looking forward to reading what else you publish this year!
Haters gonna hate. I think this is really well written. No matter your political persuasion, we should all agree that mocking and deriding independents – especially ones as politically involved as Mr. Garber – is not an appropriate response to this legitimate and well thought out article.
I only criticize his apparent representation of PARADE magazine as a serious and reliable source of political news. Governor Romney has discussed the same issues in many other forums that are more suitable to a college-level article.
I expected a more mature and thoughtful analysis out of a politically interested student at GW. Such a view is on par with those that follow current events only through The Daily Show and/or The Colbert Report.
Early on at GW, I learned that there are three kinds of sources- “scholarly”, which tends to be fairly dry, peer-reviewed material that was often requested by professors; “reliable mainstream and/or professional”- including WSJ, NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, trade and industry journals, government reports and publications, etc.; and “unacceptable”, which today would include unsubstantiated or poorly referenced blogs, books and magazines and yes, PARADE magazine.
There is a big difference between being a moderate and being an independent, but both labels give you the excuse to write a banal column.