You may have heard the popular slogan — “If you’re not afraid, you’re not paying attention.” It’s true — we, as a nation, as a community and as individuals, are under attack from the far right. Since most Grinnell students agree that there is such a threat, I will be brief — Many of our country’s citizens have adopted a far-right ideology which limits the definition of humanity to something far narrower and crueler than its natural meaning. They are choosing their leaders accordingly. As a result, the civil rights of many identity groups have been threatened or outright carved away. As citizens of this country and of the world, as members of a community and a family and for many of us, as targets of the far right ourselves, we must not allow our freedoms, our loved ones, or our lives to be taken from us — we must fight back.

The necessity of this fight should not be in question. However, even though we needmust not ask whether to defend what we love, we must still ask how. It is this question, the question of how to defend ourselves, that I believe the left has gotten wrong. The common position as of late is to treat political opponents as if they were enemy soldiers — not to speak to them, not to entertain them, but simply to try and defeat them. I understand why this is — it is easy and natural when confronted with people who deny your humanity to in turn deny theirs. It is far easier, even knowing their humanity, to believe they cannot be reasoned with. It is intuitive, instinctive and right to be angry at the prospect of having to defend one’s own equality in a debate. Of course people are tired, defeated and disillusioned — of course there is the wish to fight this metaphorical war as if it were a literal one. Such an approach, understandable as it is, dooms us to political failure. Unfortunately, there are nearly as many people in this country today who accept the hateful parts of right-wing ideology as there are those who wholeheartedly reject it. Worse still, there are also a huge number of moderates who will disregard everything else and side with whoever promises to protect them and their families. Because we do not promise them this, we are losing them. If we remain on our current trajectory, we can expect major losses within the next several years in nearly every domain important to us. More simply — if we make this a war, we will lose.

What, then, should we do instead? Certainly we must not concede equality — certainly we must not abandon the most vulnerable because defending them often proves unpopular and inconvenient. But in a democracy, politics boils down to numbers, and we can only win the numbers game if we win over the middle. Some would argue that moderates are fundamentally conservatives at heart, and that talking to them is therefore a waste of one’s time. This is incorrect. Moderates are not fundamentally conservative, they are fundamentally self-interested. We all are, but their self-interest puts them in the middle of the political spectrum. Therefore, moderates can be convinced, but only if we make it known that in fighting for liberty, we are also fighting for them. This does not require us to abandon our principles, it requires us to show that universal civil rights benefit everyone, including those whose rights remain unquestioned. What I am asking for, then, is a change in rhetoric. It is currently common for members of the social justice movement to adopt a number of positions which are neither necessary for nor beneficial to the goal of protecting civil rights. Foremost among these are the belief that for one to gain, another must lose, the belief that one who is not completely with them is by definition completely against them, and the belief that ideas which contradict theirs must not be debated.

From these beliefs follow the social justice movement’s extremist rhetoric, its alienation of the middle and parts of the left, and much of the current political backlash against all of us.

Worse yet, these beliefs are not even true. Our most pressing policy concern is protecting legal equality, which is in no way diminished when it is extended to everyone. Those who disagree with us on one issue may stand by our side on many others. We would be foolish to forsake them, numerous as they are. The ideas opposed to ours are popular because they have intrinsic appeal to many people — we cannot afford to dismiss them. Necessity compels us to take the time, effort, and pain needed to refute even, and especially, the most hateful beliefs. Therefore, if only for the sake of our survival, we must learn to debate again. If we defend our beliefs with argument rather than anger, and if we focus on the protection equality affords to everyone while still defending the civil rights of the most vulnerable, we stand a much better chance of success. If we remain focused on creating bubbles of protection like the one on this campus, we will surely fail. Such bubbles are made to seem ‘safe’ by ignoring the outside world, and by suppressing a disagreement that only turns to rage when you silence it. But as long as we have not won the war of ideas, that feeling of safety is a dangerous illusion. Do not forget, dear readers, that we are still in Iowa. Do not forget either that this state was once a progressive bastion, and that ‘freedom’ was once the catchphrase of the left. In my view, these two things go together.

Now go out, and speak freely to someone. VT