The opinion pages of this newspaper have recently been filled with arguments for and against the proposed alumni constitution. My task today has nothing to do with the merit of the constitution itself, but rather the influence of rhetoric.
Almost two weeks ago, Peter Fahey '68 ("Five Reasons to Vote, and Vote 'Yes,'" Sept. 21) wrote, "Failure to adopt the new constitution would risk dire consequences for the College. It would be a step down the road of allowing a radical minority cabal to take over the Dartmouth Board of Trustees ... it could well lead the College into a downward death spiral." While I do not believe Fahey is a man prone to exaggeration, one has to wonder if he really believes what he is writing. Does a vote against the constitution mean the College could soon become a shell of its former self? To this writer, that seems a tad excessive.
Perhaps because they are the outsiders, the voices from the other side have been more civil. They do not see the vote over the constitution as a life-or-death decision, nor do they see their opponents as bent on ruining Dartmouth. They at least appear to be offering a vision for the future (whether you agree with it is another matter), rather than attempting to capitalize on fears of the College's destruction.
On a larger scale, we can only hope that our leaders in Washington can do a similar thing. To listen to politicians in both parties, one would think that their opponents are out-of-touch ideologues who seek to make the world a worse place. Obviously, this could not be further from the truth. Our nation's leaders need to articulate a positive vision for the country. Rather than giving reasons not to vote for their opponents, politicians need to give reasons why they themselves should be elected.
It is generally considered more advantageous to be in favor of something than against it. Hence the Bush administration's insistence that its opponents want to "cut and run" in Iraq. Although I do not support the White House's position, I at least know where they stand, and what their vision for the country entails. If Democrats cannot give a positive alternative vision, any gains they make this November will be temporary. The only way for either party to create a lasting majority is to tap into the hopes and dreams of everyday Americans. The real tragedy in America is that we have become a country of 30-second attack ads rather than a place where we discuss our differing (but still positive) visions of the country.
These visions exist, but for the most part they are relegated to fiction. One was depicted on the television show "The West Wing." When I was in high school, my father watched it religiously. At the time, I never really understood why. However, I started watching reruns last summer, and now it all makes sense. For those who never watched it, "The West Wing" followed the Presidency of Jed Bartlet, a New Hampshire Democrat surprisingly elected to the White House. His morality is difficult to question, and the show presents an idealized version of politics driven not by fear, but by the power of hope.
The series ended with the election of a new president, and the message of that campaign was all about the power of a strong, positive vision, and the danger of losing that vision with the appeal of mudslinging. There was one episode, and one speech in particular, that I found especially inspiring. The Democratic candidate, Matthew Santos of Texas, spoke to the Democratic National Convention, and what he had to say was this: "Don't vote for us because of what we might be able to do for you only. Vote for the person who shares your ideals, your hopes, your dreams. Vote for the person who most embodies what you believe we need to keep our nation strong and free." If we all voted on those criteria, I firmly believe our nation would be a better place.
To return to the non-fiction world of national politics, I sincerely hope that Democrats don't honestly believe that our President is on a crusade to create an authoritarian police state. I hope Republicans do not believe that Democrats value the lives of terrorists over our own citizens. If the doomsday rhetoric of fear does not stop, how will we be able to trust our leaders? The proclamations of our nation's destruction never come true, but the proclamations themselves keep on coming.
2006 has not been the best year for the politics of hope. The politics of fear have continued to hold the spotlight, capitalizing on our anxieties and scaring us into supporting one side or the other. However, there is hope. There are some politicians like Matthew Santos, who refuse to capitulate to the temptation -- Barack Obama, John McCain and Russ Feingold being my personal favorites. And for that, we can all be thankful.
