Letters to the Editor: Justin Wiedenmann

The Same Trap

To the Editor:

Undoubtedly, political polarization poses a threat to the social cohesion of the United States. As cited in the article “After Kirk’s assassination, can Gen Z break the cycle of social media political polarization” from the October issue itself, the distance between parties continues to grow year after year, and that does correctly correlate with the increasing amount of time that the average citizen, or voter, spends online.

However, in an ironic turn of events, the Smoke Signal‘s article on political polarization is not afraid to reveal its own polarized verbiage. The article first states that Charlie Kirk’s career “thrived … as he debated students,” and a few sentences after states that “the dehumanizing circumstances framing Kirk’s death was a culture that he helped create.” The article then concludes that the promotion of “constructive debate” helps to “build civic trust and strengthen democracy.”

Analyzing the text further, it is clear that the authors of the article provide no mention as to what constructive debate actually is, and therefore creates the image that the authors have a very narrow, charged viewpoint on what Kirk did during his debates. I should like to ask the authors what the difference is between Kirk and the Elysian “constructive” debate that they describe. Is the act of trying to change people’s minds “spectacle,” or is it “constructive”? To the authors, it seems that the act mentioned is of very little importance, and instead, that political actions of any substance whatsoever can be construed as inciting “outrage” — that partisanship is inherently polarizing. Although enticing to believe, let us remember two things: firstly, that the purpose of debate (that the authors themselves call for) is to further an idea. It is contradictory to attack debate in the case of Charlie Kirk, and promote it later using arbitrary, unexplained descriptors. Secondly, recall the adage, “I don’t like what you have to say but I’ll die for your right to say it.” Partisanship itself, as displayed here, is not synonymous with hatred of your fellow countryman. 

The authors should be more careful when describing political figures, lest they fall into the same trap that they preach about. 

Senior Justin Wiedenmann