---

BY PHILIP ISSA

In print | September 11, 2008

There is more at stake in the upcoming election than foreign policy, economic policy, social policy and a handful of Supreme Court nominations. What is really at stake is the nature of American political discourse and whether it is to embrace idealism and progressivism or to reject such values for the comforts of complacency, intolerance and pessimism.

Over the past several years, our society has become increasingly pessimistic about dealing with the hurdles it faces to form a “more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

Our Congress, representative of us and charged with pursuing the above goals as laid out in the Constitution, has roundly failed to discuss the hard realities of inequality in opportunity and education, of global warming, of shrinking personal liberties and of a crumbling national infrastructure, amongst other things. Even when controlled by the opposition party, Congress has refused to even consider impeaching a President that has committed (off the top of my head) two felonies (instructing the leak of a name of a CIA operative; instructing torture) and two constitutional crimes (suspending writs of habeas corpus; unwarranted eavesdropping on citizens). This is indicative of complacency with the way things are rather than a yearning for the way things should be.

Congress’s silence on these important issues is not surprising considering the current state of political discourse. Consider how the predominant discourse is inherently complacent and intolerant of new ideas and cultures.

Last year, a smear campaign led against the original principal and founder of the Khalil Gibran International Academy, the only Arabic-English language public school in New York City, left her in disrepute and without a job the very year that she founded the school.

This is despite the fact that 67 other languages are taught at bilingual academies in the very same school system. Nor did it seem to matter that the Arab-American founder was a highly respected educator before pursuing this extension of her dream to peacefully integrate Arabic culture into American society. Xenophobes and religious fundamentalists will always rail against foreigners, but it is an indictment against the current state of political discourse that the smear campaign managed to propagate so effectively without being challenged by rational New Yorkers and a fair municipal government.

Examples of a complacent and intolerant political discourse abound. This is a discourse that is not alarmed by the violence in Trinidad, a predominantly black neighborhood in Washington D.C. that has seen so much violence that District police have closed the neighborhood off from non-residents; that does not discuss granting the residents of Puerto Rico and D.C. representation in Congress or an equal right to self-governance that other US citizens enjoy; and that does not speak about the continued deferral of hope for poor citizens of New Orleans.

It is a discourse that, if left unchallenged, will fiercely oppose the life-saving research that our biology graduates will conduct; will ostracize those of us who stand up for the rights of the disenfranchised and who struggle to build bridges among the mosaic of American immigrant cultures; will mock the students who are brave enough to accept Al Gore’s challenge to switch to renewable resources within ten years; and will demand that our female graduates accept a lower pay scale than their male counterparts.

Idealism suffocates when discourse does not embrace ambition but is instead complacent, intolerant and pessimistic. As Swarthmore students, our work depends on our ability to envision a better world and pursue the ideas that will constitute that world. To live in a society that is hostile to idealism, as we do now, is to impose self-restraints on our liberty to dream and to work as we please. For this reason, I believe that every single Swarthmore student, regardless of party affiliation, owes it to our future to vote for Barack Obama.

A vote for Obama is a rejection of the current state of political discourse that has constrained our growth as a society in ways beyond which I have just described. Look at the rhetoric coming out of each campaign. Obama’s rhetoric matches his policy: ambitious and idealistic; hopeful yet flexible. McCain’s rhetoric and policies: complacent and antiquated; intolerant and rigid.

The victor will bring his rhetoric into the White House and, by extension, into American politics and media. Certainly, Obama’s presidency will not be all things to all people.

Reform of all types will be slow and perhaps not even completed (or considered seriously) during his term. However, Obama’s election will widen the scope of political discourse to include new and progressive ideas, the types of ideas that form the basis of a Swarthmore education.

The deadlines for registering to vote and requesting an absentee ballot are fast approaching. Check out vote411.org for important voter information and register now. Most importantly, vote for Obama.

Philip is a senior. He can be reached at pissa1@swarthmore.edu.

---

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »