Why hate some politicians when you can learn to hate them all? This is the half-ironic question that ricocheted in my mind as circumstances dictated that the story I’d been working on for a few would have to take a new angle. My original plan had been to attend an Elon College Republicans meeting and get a sense of how the Grand Old Party’s future representatives were handling the latest release of the Epstein Files, along with the various other misgivings of the current administration.
This plan was stifled by the meeting getting canceled, leaving me with no event to attend and nothing to talk about. As though he divined my predicament, a fellow columnist reached out and said he would be giving a talk at the upcoming Elon College Democrats meeting. This made me think: Why talk about one side when I can talk about both? After all, contributing to the extreme partisanship of today seemed in bad taste. That and the recent NC party-line primaries this month pose a lot of questions.
I’ll admit it: The current political landscape in America has hardened my sensibilities and dashed my hopes and dreams as much as anyone else who keeps their eyes on the ticker these days.
According to the Pew Center, party lines are practically split right down the middle as of 2023, with a survey finding 49% of respondents being or leaning Democrat, 48% being or leaning Republican, and three percent reporting no lean or no answer.
I imagine the three percent unaffiliated has since shrunk or disappeared.
That said, the half-alive optimist in me wanted to believe that by the end of this column I’d feel like a little bit less of a cynic. Let me make this abundantly clear, however: A centrist, I am not. My only other desire from this column was to determine if we really all hate each other as much as the media and heads of state would have you believe.
If not to make everyone find any kind of agreement, I hope to at least open a dialogue, and failing that, to let one side know that the other has some desire to return to speaking terms. But is a College Democrats or Republicans meeting really the place to look for non-partisan hope? Perhaps not, but where else would you have me start?
The College Democrats meeting: Harsh lighting and harsher realities… a moment of respite? A foot in the door of dialogue…
Attendance was much more sparse than I had predicted; I hadn’t expected the meeting to be bursting at the seams, but this felt like an unusually low headcount.
When I sat down, I grimaced internally at the lighting. Lambert Academic Village takes on an uncanny quality by night and the fluorescents provide a sterile look to its rooms. As it turned out, two of the people sitting next to me for the duration of the meeting were members of the College Republicans, although they both self-identified as Independents with a conservative streak. They weren’t exactly forthcoming about their affiliation at first, with the person beside me saying simply that he was “not a Democrat.” After the meeting had concluded, one of the two, Diego Diaz, actually remarked on how nervous he was to be there at first. That alone, to me, speaks volumes on how American politics are in such a state right now that members of opposing parties or views feel uneasy while simply being in each other’s presence.
The meeting proceeded into special elections for various positions within the College Democrats, including positions such as director at large and political director. Various members were allowed to make their case for why they should be elected for whatever position they were vying for. The interim Political Director Miles Prenda, who is running for the full time position, chipped in before the other candidates spoke, emphasizing opting for a more democratic approach over simply appointing members for the span of a semester. Of the points made during each individual candidate’s speeches, one of the most common was how they were from Alamance County, highlighting their political activity in the area thus far and their hope to continue it. Local politics was one of the major themes of today, with the College Democrats President Noah Mallion emphasizing their immediate impact on the local populous, including students.
“We’re all here for one reason, because we care about where we live, and we care about the people who live there,” Mallion said at the meeting.
The majority of the meeting followed this pattern, with various voices expressing a desire to grow the organization and its activist efforts in and around campus. Shortly after the meeting’s close, I pulled aside a few key figures in the College Democrats apparatus.
Prenda sat down with me for a few minutes to iron out the details of what he, and by that ticket the organization, is planning. I made a comment on how many of the official position names in the College Democrats sort of blend together and he chuckled and concurred. Earlier in the meeting, Prenda had said that “the campus is asleep,” piquing my interest on what he and the others had in mind for waking it up.
Prenda explained he and the others are aiming to see meetings that discuss current events, plan to organize and to highlight opportunities within their political sphere.
“We have a duty to ensure that we are holding candidates in this county accountable [for] what they are planning to do for young people,” Prenda said.
A few individuals stayed behind to talk. Some Democrat stragglers spoke with Lance Nelkin of the College Republicans. Nelkin, a lanky and bearded man, explained his presence by saying he wanted to hear what the College Democrats had to say.
The two College Republicans likely felt encouraged to stay behind after Mallion expressed his desire to hold a mediated debate with the College Republicans in the future to the concurrence of his peers. The current state of politics found its way into the discussion, however, with Mallion and a few others stating they didn’t want to deal with any “crazies from either side.”
The conversation got underway with Mallion explaining his basest desires as a Democrat to Diaz. According to Mallion, much of the issues facing America today boil down to a matter of community, and our goals on either side of the aisle are to take care of our own, although we have differing ideas on how exactly to do this.
Mallion called himself “a Democrat based in fact,” remarking on how he will listen to anyone provided they can back up their claims with evidence. Diaz responded with approval. He laughed and said he “liked this kind of Democrat,” and that he “wished they were all like this.”
Incredible. The very last thing I expected to see were members of the College Republicans at a College Democrats meeting, much less for them to engage with each other, civil or otherwise.
When I asked Mallion and Diaz about their opinions on the inflammatory politics in our political landscape, they both expressed their exhaustion with the practice. Mallion used the term “clickbait politics,” which I think sums up online discourse in two words better than most major media outlets could in an entire segment or article. They are the practitioners in question, after all.
All of this being said, my observations at the College Democrats meeting led me to believe there is a desire for civil discourse. This belief will be tested against whatever occurs at the College Republicans meeting I’ll be attending, but if what I have seen so far is any indicator, I’m deciding now to let the optimist in me take the wheel, if only momentarily.
The College Republicans meeting: Business marches on… here lies optimism? Unease between the aisles…
I made a beeline for the back as soon as I walked in, but my attempt to fly under the radar was in vain as I was immediately greeted by the College Republicans’s president, Peyton Brinn. I said a quick “hello” before planting it in the back row and opening my laptop.
This meeting was taking place in Richard W. Sankey Hall, the business school at Elon and a building where I look and feel categorically out of place. The same oppressive lighting as other buildings, the same half-comfortable plastic chairs and lack of life signs as the room the College Democrats meeting took place in.
There’s something visceral about politics on this level. We’re so used to seeing the proceedings on a screen that when they unfold in front of you it’s hard to put into words.
The opening minutes crawled as usual: events, opportunities with local candidates and representatives, similar organizations looking to charter or grow. All bog-standard in the world of collegiate politics.
It only started to get interesting when Brinn opened up the floor to meeting participants, first for members to contribute ideas to the College Republican cause for the semester then to get a sense of why everyone was here to begin with. Nelkin, who attended the College Democrats meeting on behalf of the Republicans, spoke up and expressed the Dem’s desire for a debate, and how organizations’ joint attempt at setting one up the prior semester was hindered by “miscommunication.” This was met with a decidedly lukewarm response.
“Little ironic,” Brinn said.
This jarred me, especially seeing how willing the leaders of the College Democrats were to get a dialogue going in comparison. I felt the optimism born from the last meeting start to shrink.
I wasn’t expecting a unanimous and enthusiastic response from the College Republicans when presented with an opportunity of communication, but I suppose part of their hesitance was a result of the failed debate attempt last semester. For those unfamiliar, there was an attempt at organizing a debate between the two clubs, but it seems to have fallen through at the last minute after an extended planning period. I dug into the reasons for this and the consensus appears to be miscommunication between the then party leaders.
The College Republicans definitely feel as though they are on the back foot as of late, if their individual reasons for joining the club are anything to go off of. Gillian Pritchard said she felt very alone as a Republican at Elon and she wanted to show Democrats, “Hey, we’re human too.”
I sat back with Pritchard and a few other women of the College Republicans after the meeting and asked her to expand on this sentiment.
“Growing up in a very democratic town I lost friendships due to being a Republican… nice to have a safe space,” Pritchard said.
Later on: A wretched retrospective… hope yet for America? Party lines in the sand…
It’s been about a month since I took this quixotic approach to politics upon myself, and I can feel my grip on both my sanity and the point of this column slipping the longer I drag it out. In an attempt to curb my own cynicism, I sought out both parties on campus in hopes they’d be on speaking terms. My findings tell me that it’s up in the air right now, but survey says they could be. There is some willingness to communicate from either side that, if handled with enough care, may yet spread to most of each organizations’ constituents.
Though yet to be formally organized, the forthcoming debate could potentially be the first step on this long road, provided either side does not chase after the fabled “gotcha moment” modern political theatrics seem so fond of.
I feel as though politics and optimism in this country mix about as well as oil and water. Either side has reduced the other into a monolith to be feared and reviled.
Modern politics rails against nuance, unwilling to admit it is the glue that binds this nation.
The very moment we resign to black and white thinking, a problem will rise from the gray, and it will not discriminate. So don’t pigeonhole yourself or others, learn to look at the larger argument with an interrogative lens and don’t let anyone make conclusions for you.
It should be your responsibility alone to form your opinion, especially in a country where politics are often nature over nurture.
I’ll admit outright that there were some things said that I vehemently disagreed with, but refusing to even hear someone is a surefire way to further galvanize them against you. Like them or not, when you look across that party line, there’s someone staring right back at you, and they’re human too.