Mr. Potter (rather aptly) describes his language in his column as “cruelly blunt.” With this I am in agreement. Now it’s true that Mr. Potter doesn’t claim that Princeton students who would support Governor Romney are stupid, but he does argue that to support Governor Romney is a stupid decision. The problem is that his rather vitriolic language highlights an important problem which exists in today’s political discourse. I will leave it to social scientists and cultural critics to opine on the reasons why this is the case, and whether it is really such a modern phenomenon, but it seems all too rare for us to engage in political conversation without demonizing those “on the other side.” If a person disagrees with us on matters of tax policy or abortion, they’ve got to be anti-American or a socialist or simply behaving stupidly.
The fact of the matter is that when we talk in this way it’s rare we move the political conversation forward. There are intelligent, well-intentioned, reasonable people on both sides of most debates. At very least, then, because there are many whom we disagree with who are well-informed, we ought to afford their arguments an appropriate amount of respect. This requires at least two steps: first, engaging the best arguments against those positions which we believe to be true and, second, proposing our own arguments in a way which does not demonize those with whom we disagree. On both of these counts, I’m afraid I found Mr. Potter’s opinion column lacking.
Toni Alimi ’13