A day of elation and empowerment for some, a day of anguish and fear for others. January 20 proved our political divide has grown beyond tax rates and states’ rights to conceptions of the American identity. Division has thrived on the impersonal nature of identity politics, sensationalist cable news, bullying, negativity and blatant lies. A vicious spiral is born when we avoid sincere engagement, instead retreating into the comforts of ideological tribalism.
As students we share more of the blame than we care to admit. Too often we assume President Trump’s supporters are racist, stupid or uninformed, yet few Bowdoin students regularly interact with President Trump’s supporters. Nearly half of the registered voters in our country voted for President Trump. Can you name 10 people who did the same? Without contact and connection to opposing thoughts, we cannot comprehend others’ motivations. In this isolating climate, Bowdoin students tend to revert to four common coping strategies: removal, denial, posting and protesting—each inadequate and fraught with problems.
Removal: The worst possible option is cutting off engagement from political news and discourse. Confronting a lost election is difficult and reality can be painful, but civic participation is the lifeblood of democracy. Removal of oneself from the discourse is disastrous. Americans facing the challenges of yesteryear did not surrender when they were down but dug in more deeply. As Bowdoin students, we are blessed with the education and experiences to critically examine multiple perspectives and arguments. Our education obliges us to recognize the political, moral and philosophical problems of our day and to fight for what we believe. To fall into the feeble role of an uninformed citizen because watching the news makes you sad is a disservice to yourself, your country and your educators.
Denial: This is exemplified best by the #notmypresident hashtag and it is your next worst option. Denying your connection to President Trump does not diminish your affiliation to him or his administration. Factually incorrect, the handle attempts to remove your personal responsibility for his policies and any duty you have to challenge them. Sixty-five U.S. representatives went further, boycotting the inauguration. Skipping an inauguration disrespects one of our country’s greatest feats: the peaceful transition of power. Anyone denying the president’s legitimacy sets a precedent of disregard for future disputed elections.
Posting: Sharing a New York Times, Buzzfeed or Huffington Post article on Facebook may boost morale and offer the sensation of resistance. In reality social media sites usually stand as echo chambers of agreement, validation and witty soundbites. Opposing comments frequently face enmity. When online debates do materialize, civility is limited, bullying encouraged and resentment the common result.
Protesting: This option beats the previous three. The recent women’s marches were framed positively, their goals well known (though a plan of implementation was not) and they were widely recognized. The marches, as noted by David Brooks, were only a first step; mobilization is a sign of intent, but concrete action must follow. More importantly, they failed to engage the other side, epitomized by the exclusion of a leading pro-life feminist group. The marches began with the participants in agreement and ended with few minds changed.
During the campaign our president demonstrated invincibility to scandal, beating impossible odds and all opposition. President Trump quickly learned that if he maintained the support of his base, the actions of the opposition mattered little. The Republican establishment, never-Trumpers and the person who Obama called “the most qualified candidate in history,” lost not because their messages failed to garner support, but because they failed to change minds. Our student activism appears to follow the same misstep. Removing, denying, posting and protesting on a politically homogenous campus plot no course for compromise, do not facilitate mutual understanding and further entrench each side. Signs, chants, sharing articles, and grouping together only raises the volume of a message already well heard at Bowdoin.
The only feasible path to cope with Trump is one previously introduced by the president of our college, Clayton Rose. Rose has repeatedly pushed us to be “intellectually fearless” and to pursue “difficult conversations.” Now more than ever we must turn away from the comforts of insular thinking and seek challenging dialogue. The tools of engagement are simple: a clear mind and calm spirit. Listen and attempt to understand not only different positions, but also the life circumstances that may have led to them being held. Build bridges of trust, then explain your opinions and reasoning. Empathy and compassion convince far more quickly than the loudest megaphone or the biggest march.
Trump won the election because his campaign transcended politics and connected with voters on an emotional level. To influence the leader one must influence his followers. Dealing with Donald Trump means engaging with Trump supporters personally. Show them you hear them, care about them and seek to understand. Create relationships with those who disagree and the common ground you find will surprise. Bowdoin teaches us that diversity makes us stronger. This is undeniably true. Yet, we must go beyond putting ourselves in the shoes of those who do not look like us and try on the shoes of those who do not think like us. Only then will we become the inclusive community we yearn to be. As Americans, far more unites than divides us.
Editor's Note, February 7, 2017, 2 p.m.: An earlier version of this article inaccurately stated that "nearly half our country voted for President Trump." The artilce has been updated to reflect that nearly half of the country's registered voters cast their ballot for Trump.