Last Wednesday, Peter Orszag, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and of the Office of Management and Budget, gave a lecture that touched on the increasing political polarization in the United States ("Orszag discusses political economy," Feb. 9). He argued that this trend is reflective of increased polarization among Americans as a whole rather than just among American politicians. Political polarization has increased because many people only follow news sources that tend to confirm their pre-existing ideological beliefs, and people are increasingly able to avoid news sources that might present an opposing opinion. It would be a mistake if we as Dartmouth students failed to seriously consider Orszag's argument.
While introducing Orszag, economics professor Andrew Samwick made several kind remarks about a Social Security plan that Orszag previously proposed. During his lecture, Orszag reciprocated the kind words. This may not seem significant, but it is. In the late 1990s, Samwick and Harvard economist Martin Feldstein crafted a proposed reform of Social Security that then-presidential candidate George W. Bush adopted in his 2000 campaign platform. During the 2005 Social Security debate, Orszag and Massachusets Institute of Technology economist Peter Diamond crafted a left-leaning counterproposal. Samwick and Orszag's mutual understanding of and respect for each other's proposals starkly contrasts with many other opinionated Americans' lack of understanding of "the other side."
In 1950, English mathematician Alan Turing proposed a means of testing a machine's ability to mimic human behavior. In a "Turing Test," the computer would try to respond to a human's questions in such a way as to convince the person that it was actually another human.
Brian Caplan, an economist at George Mason University, recently proposed that a "Turing Test" be applied to people's political opinions. Presumably, an individual can only claim to really understand an issue if he or she understands both sides. Thus, a "Turing Test" for a conservative individual would involve asking him or her to state the typical liberal arguments on a particular issue. The conservative would pass the test only if he or she were able to state the liberal arguments in a way that is recognizable to an actual liberal.
Now, given their reputations and their comments last Wednesday, I am strongly inclined to believe that both Samwick and Orszag can pass a political "Turing Test." In fact, the first time I met Samwick, he nearly convinced me that Diamond and Orzag's plan was the right option.
Unfortunately, I think that many Dartmouth students would be unable to pass a "Turing Test" on many politically controversial issues. Take abortion and gay marriage, for instance. I have, on occasion, asked some of my liberal friends to explain why many conservatives oppose unrestricted abortion rights and the legalization of gay marriage. Usually, the responses have been polite, politically correct statements the really amount to "conservatives don't really care about gay rights or women's rights" when you strip away the verbal fluff.
A previous editor here at The Dartmouth once provided all of the opinion staff with a list of newspapers divided into two columns "liberal" and "conservative." He then told us that if we weren't reading at least one newspaper from each column on a regular basis, we shouldn't bother writing columns on political topics.
Dartmouth aspires to be a liberal arts college that instills, among other virtues, tolerance and understanding in its students. While I don't think that the administration should force students to read particular newspapers, I do think that Dartmouth students who wish to voice political opinions would do well to heed my former editor's advice.
In short, to see the causes and some of the consequences of increasing political polarization, you need not look beyond this campus. And, in order to solve this problem, we should all take to heart what Orszag said in an interview with The Dartmouth, "It would help all of us to make an affirmative effort ... to hear out the other side." One thing is certain: Dr. Orszag did not gain a deep understanding of Feldstein and Samwick's Social Security plan by reading only The New York Times or The Huffington Post.
