Living in Grey: A Look in Polarization

On Feb. 15th, the Center for Ethics and Leadership hosted a discussion on “Political Polarization in the American Public: How Increasing Ideological Uniformity and Partisan Antipathy Affect Politics, Compromise and Everyday Life” conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2014. The purpose of the discussion was to bring together different opinions to discuss political polarization.

The audience, mostly faculty members and older people, reflected mixed political views. Only one member abruptly left the conversation.

Even at an institution like St. Edward’s University, the polarization exists. Conservatives in the room said that they felt invisible. Jack Musselman, the leader of this discussion, shared a story that occurred in a previous discussion on Jan. 24. “I intentionally invited a couple of real conservative students and they came.” According to Musselman, the conversation, however, did not end well. It was easy for other students to pounce on the conservative students’ throats when introducing another point of view to discussion. There was little to no effort to listen to what the other had to say. Eventually, the conservative students shut down.

When describing a student that approached him after the discussion, he said, “It’s St. Edward’s. It’s a liberal arts campus. It’s a liberal campus. It’s in Austin. He just felt like his voice wouldn’t be heard. And this student was brilliant. He was well versed on the subject and just refused to speak out.”

The hard-hitting topics of the discussion revolved around the media, religion, and economic status. Many in the audience stated that people have a desire to belong to something. People want to be accepted in a group. In some ways, it is easy to find people you agree with in politics. People avoid the possibility of hearing something they don’t agree with. They fight. They argue. They don’t make up. The hard move for either a liberal or a conservative is to simply talk to one another without allowing their opinions to cloud judgement.

According to some members of the group, the media has no favor in conversation. News outlets were not seen kindly in the discussion, partial to blame for the polarization. The 2016 presidential election race was enough to prove that journalistic neutrality is not always present in the media.

A solution, perhaps, was suggested by a few members of the group. Texas is a Republican majority, despite how liberal Austinites can be. Instead of pushing buttons, maybe both parties should find commonalities. This threaded through inspiration of gerrymandering in Austin. According to Silicon Valley Research Data, Texas has intricately drawn districts with the purpose of gerrymandering.

The only time to end the polarization was to simply talk and listen to what the other group has to say.

“Through talking, we can reach a consensus as a whole,” Musselman said. “Without talking to the other side, there is no way to connect. The purpose of these discussions is to provide deep communication of conversation and dialogue.”

Elise Krentzel, founder of ek Consulting, stated that the topic of polarization was important to her. She wanted to express that attending political conversations is so vital for the Austin community.

“There is a lot of grey between black and white. I think that’s where most of us live and that is why it is difficult for us to come together on specific issues. We are polarized on issues. Well, guess what? Our lives are richer than our issues.” Elise Krentzel, founder of ek Consulting, said.

#article #event