This week’s Rose Cafe with Professor Peter Enns was spent discussion Trump’s first weeks in office, and was supposed to be an open discussion to voice our opinions regarding everyone’s favorite president. This “open discussion” became a safe space for liberal students to voice their opinions. On the other hand, and while I’m no fan of the guy by any means, I can’t imagine anyone in that room being a fan of President Trump and feeling free to speak up. If I were a Trump supporter, I would fear being ridiculed by the rest of the students.

Aside from the clear bias in the room, the other reason I believe it was only two or three students speaking up (in a room of roughly 20) is that the rest of the students may not have felt comfortable enough with their political knowledge to comment on recent presidential actions. I know for a fact that I have not kept up to date with current events revolving our government, and while that is my own shortcoming, I do believe I am not alone. It is not right, and we should know what is happening in our country and keep updated on how it is being run, but people don’t always have time to follow political news. I think in the future if a similar event is to be run, it may be more beneficial to break into smaller groups to discuss. In this setting, I personally would have been more comfortable with sharing my limited understanding, and it would not have been as much of a listening session and more of an actual discussion with peers. Nonetheless, this Rose Cafe did allow me to get a quick update on Trump’s policies and how he has spent the beginning of his term.

On Wednesday evening, I attended a talk with the intention to listen to Professor Peter Enns’ opinion and various facts on American governance and specifically the changes occurring with the new president. However, rather than hearing his opinion or the public opinion, the talk was more of a conversation with a select few of the audience (us students) about Trump’s recent policies, specifically on immigration.

I can’t say I’m disappointed in this talk. Regardless, it was beneficial to think about policies; I’m not one to constantly do so. Students gave opinions on how Trump’s policies have been widely disputed and are wrong. Some discussed the judicial system’s play in allowing these policies to be enacted. Others discussed the historical significance of conservative versus liberal presidents and policies. One specific unique conversation was how to integrate pro-Trump students and people into these conversations of current policies to understand all views. This was a very enlightening topic for me personally. However, we didn’t really stick to this topic for long before moving on for closing remarks.

The biggest problem that I wanted resolved going into this Rose Cafe was to understand exactly what the policies are, what various political opinions are, what the public opinion is, and alternatives people have proposed to Trump’s policies. Clarification is huge. I think so many people, especially people in the generation of social media, have the problem of misinformation. Many things may be blown up due to one specific comment on a specific Facebook page. But what was really the back story?

One takeaway that I think was important is that it is very important to be accurately informed from all angles. Understand more. Think more. Don’t form concrete opinions too quickly.

I am not a conservative by any means whatsoever. However, I can honestly comment that a many of my beliefs and ideals fall in line with Republican ideals. Most politicians – democrat and republican alike – have very similar agendas, at least behind closed doors. While the media may create the illusion that our democracy is contingent on three issues – abortion, civil, and gun rights – that simply isn’t true.

Last week, I sat with a group of students as we discussed the tensions looming since the election of Donald Trump to the highest of office of all the land – President of the United States (its still hard to believe…). While the majority of  the conversation was grounded in the role of judicial courts and branches in curtailing the reach of the presidency,  I posed the question: how do we begin to engage in conversations with people who respect and admire the current administration with admonishing their character and political views?

And I didn’t realize this at the moment, but this question was very hard for people to answer. It seemed to have thrown people off. Was the purpose of this conversation to sit around vent? Or was it to come together to find solutions in the current government that we have? I have been blessed in my life to have only engaged in thoughtful and compelling arguments with Republicans. To this day, I have yet to really meet a Republican who couldn’t justify or support their opinions. While this may not be the case in media, it the truth in my life.

Apparently for some, this isn’t the case. And to some extent some people don’t even want to talk with Republicans because they find them incompetent. A student in the discussion was even so bold to say that that Republicans tend to not have as high educational degrees. Implying that our intelligence is intrinsically linked to our educational degrees.This very sentient is what is driving a wedge between two parties and ideologies that should be working together. While the fact maybe true of Republicans, it is also true that many segments of the Democrat’s base is in extreme poverty and uneducated, as well. But that doesn’t mean we refrain from talking with fractions who don’t meet our Ivy League degrees.

Which brings me this final question: How can we even begin to engage in conversations with other people when we automatically assume they are stupid?

The answer: we can’t. For honest conversations to occur, for policy to change and for lives to be dignified, we must always assume the best intentions of those we are talking to. For those that struggle with this, I hope you take the time to understand that you are an impediment to public discourse and political change.

This Rose Cafe focused on one of the more relevant topics of the day, the political troubles of the nation. I’m glad that the Cafes make a deliberate effort to remain relevant, no matter how controversial the subject. Though the event’s headliner was an expert in government and politics, the focus remained on providing a forum for students to share their thoughts and opinions. One of the more salient points of the talk was the inability to accept nuances in the political views of others. Instead, people are split into diametrically opposed political camps which can be internalized although most possess views on both sides of the political spectrum. As genuine as this attempt was, I question the real value of such discourse. It was only after another student brought it up that I realized the views shared merely echoed each other, that a tacit code was guiding the conversation. It shouldn’t surprise me that this microcosm was as homogeneous as the college political culture can be, but how can real change occur if the dialogues we participate in are reactionary in nature?

At this rose cafe, we were lucky enough to welcome Peter Enns, an expert on government. During this more conversational rose cafe, one student brought up the importance of communicating with people who don’t necessarily hold our political beliefs. I find this kind of sentiment very important, especially considering the divided nature of our country today. As a result, I have tried to browser multiple forums and talk to people I know who support Donald Trump, in addition to view what people are saying about various issues and new articles around the country. When I do this, I find that though we are discussing the same things, we tend to have completely different sources and realities. While I try to be unemotional and level-headed when discussing these topics, I find it hard at times. For example, upon asking one of my friends how she feels about Trump’s lack of concern over the changing climate, she stated that she was unconcerned, as humans are a warm weather species. As you can imagine, this was very hard to respond to in a respectful way.

Basically, while I identify with the sentiment of trying to communicate with people who are “outside” of your echo chamber, it is incredibly difficult to achieve this when you and the other person have two extremely different realities. I can respect peoples differing views on how government funds should be spent, level of executive reach, etc. but I find it hard to respect others which have no basis in scientific reality. Nor do I think that their views should be respected.

As a Government major,  I was really excited to go to this Rose Cafe with Peter Enns, where he would lead a discussion on the current state of American politics. I think that the format of an open discussion encouraged inquiry on topics that Professor Enns might not normally talk about, but that he can respond to based on his wide knowledge of the subject matter. What I found particularly interesting was Professor Enns’ study and knowledge of the Supreme Court, because I find the Supreme Court fascinating. Something that the Professor mentioned was that, because of increased partisan alignment, the public is more and more capable of predicting Supreme Court decisions and votes based on who nominated the individual justices.

I am well aware of the hyper-partisan era we live in today, but observations like this one trouble me. The Supreme Court is an institution designed to be separate from both party and politics. The lifelong nature of the position of Supreme Court Justice was intended to isolate and protect the Justices from remaining dependent on the President who elected them or the party they belong to. Their job is to interpret the law. Not to interpret legality based on politics. If the Court was truly separate from the other branches of government, it would not be possible to predict which way a decision would fall based on party leanings or presidential nomination. Since this is clearly possible, our society is faced with the challenge of further isolating the highest court in the land. They should not be responsive to the President, nor public opinion, as these are subject to change based on a whim. The Court should be subject only to the law and its workings in our society. As such, we must find a way to preserve their independence, lest we risk losing our system of the separation of powers.

I attended the Rose Cafe discussion hosted by Professor Peter Enns last week. Though we talked about a myriad of topics. One that stuck out to me was the differences in “changes” that we have observed about one month into President Trump’s presidency.   Compared to former President Barack Obama, it seems that Trump wants to create change as fast as possible. This has been illustrated by his Immigration ban policy, where he wants to keep people out of the country. From CNN, Trump’s policy is supposed to bar citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States for the next 90 days and suspends the admission of all refugees for 120 days. This is not only problematic fro our country, but also problematic for the world. However, if this executive order were to go through the people that voted for our president will get what they wanted, accelerated change.

When it comes to this ban from the United States, I think about the people that look towards our medical care for help because it is world class. I also think about the people that want to come here for better opportunities. That is what our country is about. I feel that this particular exclusion by our commander and chief, who is the representative of the country could change the United States. However, I do not think for the better.

It was great to have Professor Peter Enns come and discuss with us some of the political issues and discourse currently dominating this country at the Rose Cafe. We touched on a variety of issues, such as the whether or not President Trump’s recent executive orders are actually legal and how to have constructive and inclusive conversations with all types of people. And on the subject of having inclusive and fruitful discussions, one of the points raised was to try not to attack and question the motives and character of individuals, but rather focus on the substance of the issues at hand. However, I believe that the values, beliefs, and motives of individuals are essential to the way they approach policy on these various issues. For example, whether or not people feel areas such as education and health care are human rights dictates the types of policy they put forth or support. And thus, while discussion of the validity of someone’s motives and beliefs can be a very challenging and perhaps uncomfortable subject to approach in a conversation, I actually think that it is crucial to truly get to the root of many of the political issues that face this country.

And while conversation is never a bad thing, I think what is far more important is actually calling out and standing up against injustices that take place in this country. I believe that such events like the Women’s March are simply awesome and are incredibly hopeful signs.  This actually relates to what Professor Enns discussed as the “zone of acquiescence”, which refers to a range of acceptable policies on political issues, and certainly many events and occurrences of the past couple years should have exceeded and gone far beyond society’s zone of acquiescence. Thus, although our country is facing a difficult political climate, I genuinely believe that as long as we continue to follow our morality and act against injustices, the country will be in good shape.

It was a treat to be part of a conversation with Prof. Peter Enns at the previous week’s Rose Café. The topic was based on the current political climate and it couldn’t be anymore pertinent considering the rather unstable nature of our government and interplay between our institutions. We discussed many different things and policy decisions, such as the immigration ban and such but we also delved into more social aspects, such as appropriate ways of interacting with people who support President Trump. There were quite a few instances where we delved into psychology amusingly enough but I found it valuable nonetheless. When talking to someone about a controversial topic like politics, it is important to have an open mindset. One should not approach the situation to “win” or to change the other person’s mind because it only causes them to entrench in even further. Prof, Enns mentioned that changing people’s mind is often quite subtle and originates from small seeds planted from a productive conversation, not a combative one. Prof. Enns also talked about a struggle or conflict that he was trying to reconcile in seeing if his point of view and opinions about the topic at hand were “factually correct” or a product of bias. It is an interesting concept and something every one should try to think about on their own time.

Bias is inevitable but personally, if I can find enough facts that is objective and independent enough to support my claim, then I feel confident in it. It is tricky trying to make sense of the world, especially when it seems the world and worse the media at times seem to have an agenda. The staircase phobia that Pres. Trump supposedly had was widely spread by major news organization before there was a call for skepticism. It is not easy trying to discern what is stated as fact in an article, e.g., a quote, and an interpretation of the information that may not be substantiated with sources. Reading once or twice more and taking things with a pinch of salt is a healthy approach to consuming news. This is especially relevant considering the phenomenon of “fake news.” While articles can be improperly sourced or certain opinions are incorrectly passed as truth, I find it ludicrous to consider everything “fake news,” especially if it is from a publication that may not align with your political ideology. Claiming every negative poll or critical news story as “fake news” is dubious at best. Mentioning false events as facts is another problem as well. Prof. Enns talked about whether Presidents should have to tell the truth all the time and I don’t think he or she would have to on the basis of being a human but they should make an effort to not to. Additionally, even if they got something wrong, they should provide a correction or retraction with the same amount of import and attention as the original statement. If the latter is not achieved, then lying or saying incorrect things to the public is inexcusable. Elected officials have a duty to guide and serve the people, not mislead them. Luckily, we are imbued with options to push for more competent governing. Political action has never been more relevant since it is important to protect the rights we care about and allow for the United States to progress and not regress. How do you view the presidency so far and the current political climate?

This week’s Rose Café was a political conversation with Professor Peter Enns. It was definitely an interesting conversation and it was great to hear a Professor’s opinions along with different students’ political views.

However, I think one idea that came up towards the end of the conversation particularly frustrated me- we discussed how it is important not to “question the motives” of people who disagree with us and talk about politics in an inclusive manner that respects the perspectives of people with different political views than us. In general, I completely understand this. I am definitely eager and open to learning new and different things and understand opinions different to mine and realize that everyone has different experiences and identities which shape their political views.

However, I think things are extremely different with this most recent election and trying to build an environment “inclusive and respectful” of Trump supporters is dangerous and normalizes Trump as a President. We must not forget that this has been arguably the most divisive election that has ever occurred and it is something that feels a lot more personal and sensitive. This election hasn’t just been about something like say, trickle down economics. Believing in trickle down economics or other Republican policies doesn’t make someone a bad person and does not harm the lives of other people. The election of Trump is life threatening and extremely scary for millions of people- women, minorities, immigrants, and others. It is quite literally a matter of life and death for some people, a matter of being able keep one’s basic human rights and being able to stay in the United States. To me, being “inclusive” of Trump supporters is to normalize and encourage blatant xenophobia, misogyny and racism which actually HARMS people! I am open to respecting opinions, but sexism and racism to me are not merely opinions and I will not respect or be inclusive of a view which harms and threatens people. I would love to hear what a Republican had to say about his or her political views in any other election- but this election period has been far too appalling and is too grave and serious of an issue to say that all opinions should be respected.

Dear Julia,

On Wednesday my Rose Scholar event was a group discussion led by Professor Peter Enns on the American political discourse. We discussed the President’s Muslim ban, his Supreme Court appointment of Neil Gorsuch, his cabinet appointments of controversial figures like Betsy Devos and Jeff Sessions (both of whom Kate McKinnon has done a great job satirizing on SNL recently). For most of the hour though, we discussed the role of information, media, and the news in our political discourse, and the effect this has on our ability to communicate with people we don’t agree with. One person asked Professor Enns if liberals have become too proud and egotistical–aristocratic even–about their value scheme. This is a topic you and I have also discussed. It’s hard. For me being a liberal has always generally meant having enough empathy for other people to care about their well-being. Meanwhile (and I apologize in advance for the hyperbole here) conservatism and libertarianism to me are more centered around a fuck you, I got mine type of philosophy. In other worlds: life is something to be shared vs something to be earned. With that in mind it’s hard to think about seeing eye to eye with a person who I feel fundamentally misunderstands the human condition. I agree with Professor Enns that the political polarization we face today needs to change, though. So I guess that means I’ll need to put aside my moralism a little more (even though I’m definitely right about everything) when we talk to people who are a little more outside our political wheelhouse.

Love,

Rob

The first Rose Cafe of the semester was a shift from the cafes I’ve been accustomed to. Instead of a lecture, it was largely a conversation. It focused on the recent developments in US politics.

One of my favorite points that Professor Enns talked about was how quick people are to accept their parties’ position on a topic. One reason is that people don’t care as much for some issues as others, so they might as well take their parties’ position on everything. I feel like this is counter-productive. It is hard enough to have a discussion about an issue when someone doesn’t understand the opposition’s argument, but it is even harder when a person doesn’t understand the argument for a position either. I think this phenomenon also happens because people will assign a whole list of positions to you as soon as you reveal preference for a candidate of either party. At some point people just adopt a position since they are always assumed to have it anyways.

Another interesting topic that was touched upon was people having double standards for their party vs the other party. Professor Enns discussed how it is important to recognize whether you dislike something based on principle or because it is being done by the other party. One example of this was how much Republicans were decried for obstruction for many years, but now Democrats in office face strong pressure to oppose everything proposed by the Republicans. It is a valid argument to say the situation is vastly different; however, Democrats now see obstruction in government as a valid, even admirable, tactic. This is why I think they should’ve spent more time trying to gain support for their ideas instead of arguing that Republicans were unfairly blocking Obama’s agenda and that obstruction was ruining government.

Last Wednesday at Rose Cafe, Professor Peter Enns led an engaging discussion on the current state of politics. Overall, I found the Cafe very engaging, and learned a lot from the perspectives of my peers who are very knowledgeable about history of politics in America. One topic that stood out to me in particular was our discussion of partisanship, especially in light of the recent events. Professor Ems asked an interesting question: Think about your stance on controversial issues. How many of your beliefs are in line with your party’s beliefs, and ask yourself if you would have come to the same conclusion independently apart from your label as a “Democrat” or “Republican.” This has made me realize that sometimes it is difficult for me to differentiate between my personal views and the views of the party I associate with, and if I believe in certain policies just because of the “liberal/Democrat” or “conservative/Republican” label.

A big problem today is that politics has become more and more like rooting for a sports team, where constructive conversations has given way to the “my group” versus “your group” mentality combined with blind support. This makes dialogue more difficult and brings progress to a standstill. It is also very telling to think that the extreme polarization and Congress’s lack of efficiency we have accustomed to/expecting of now was not characteristics of the political landscape just a couple decade ago. Even traditionally non-partisan issues are now being voted in partisan lines and you can predict views on complicated issues such as education, spending, and abortion just based on partisanship when you could not do this in the past. Many times, politicians are pressured to say things/believe in things because of party loyalty, sacrificing what they truly believe in as a person, and this is an unfortunate consequence of how polarized our political landscape as become.

The recent events have no doubt caused disagreement and tension among both parties. But it is important to remember that the goal of conversation should not be to attack and question opinions, but to plant ideas and find common ground. Regardless of political beliefs, it is important to have conversations inclusive of all viewpoints as our country becomes increasingly partisan. Yet this type of conductive dialogue is easier said than done, but recognition and having an open mind is a step towards progress.

Last night’s Rose Café talk focused on current day politics. It is certainly an interesting time to discuss politics because of the new administration and the seemingly increase in partisanship. There are several issues that I believe may be contributing to the increasingly partisanship division.

I think one of the issues is that conflict, divisiveness, and dysfunction make for more interesting media. Very little has been reported on nominees or legislation that have received bi-partisan support. This makes the partisan political conflict seem even more extreme. For example, during the Café talk it was stated that most Supreme Court decisions are 5-4. However, after researching this later I found that only about 20% of cases are decided 5-4.

Another problem is the echo chamber that occurs when people are not exposed to diverse viewpoints. Often it takes an effort to seek out differing viewpoints and seriously engage with these arguments. This dynamic has undoubtedly shaped my personal beliefs since the areas which I have lived are mostly comprised of people who share my political views. I have found it difficult to step outside of this echo chamber.

I am also concerned by the lack of rigorous intellectual debate in politics. So many issues are litigated in the court of public opinion on rather petty grounds. I wish that more issues would be studied and debated with academic rigor in public forums.

In the end, I still believe that there is more that unites us than divides us.

This week’s Rose Cafe guest speaker was Professor Enns, who teaches in Cornell’s government department. I really liked the set-up of this event in Professor Blalock’s office because it was much more conducive to holding conversations. This evening’s discussion was fueled primarily by our questions, comments, and observations on the current political happenings. Some of the topics discussed were the checks and balances of the government, the two-party system, and political polarization.

Often after leaving such political discussions, I find my head spinning with new ideas and perspectives that I had never considered before. I left the event questioning myself on some of my own beliefs. For example, Professor Enns spoke about political bias versus principle. He was against the confirmation of Betsy De Vos as Education Secretary and upset that the Republicans strategically decided to delay the confirmation of Jeff Sessions as the Attorney General so that he could partake in the voting. Yet, he was unsure if he was against this solely on principle or just because he didn’t approve of De Vos. Likewise, I found myself questioning how I was so against all of Donald Trump’s executive orders and thought he was totally overstepping his power. Yet, I applauded when Barack Obama bypassed Congress to pass his own executive orders. It’s really difficult to separate bias from principal, but is something that is really important to be cognizant of.

The other main topic was the intense polarization on both sides of the parties and how the media is in the thick of it all. It’s so difficult to have a conversation with someone on the opposing side when the very ideas of ‘truth’ and ‘fact’  seem to no longer exist objectively and independent of the human mind. A phrase I had read recently in an article, “fight fear with facts,” really resonated with me. As a populist candidate, Trump was able to gather supporters who voted for him out of legitimate fears over their safety, job security, etc. I think the best and really only way to cure this intense political divide is to have open conversations with people of differing political opinions. As Professor Enns advised, we should not come across as attacking the other person,  but rather be understanding and sympathetic. I know that many people have great respect for the truth and I do believe that educating others is the only solution to fight fear on both sides.

Professor Enns and several Rose House residents brought up some important points concerning current discontent with the American government. I have been alarmed by the rate at which President Trump has been issuing executive orders creating dramatic changes, but this type of rapid, drastic change is exactly what the public asked for when it voted him into office. After Barack Obama’s “Change We Can Believe In” never quite materialized, Americans wanted someone who would actually use their executive power to enact tangible changes immediately. One reason for Obama’s failure to produce some of the “change” he promised is the slow bureaucratic processes required of the United States’ federal government. Getting anything done in such a large government takes so much time because it involves many different people with competing agendas. The polarization of the political parties in the United States has only worsened government gridlock.

The fact that increasingly polarized parties have in part contributed to this recent barrage of executive orders has forced me to reflect upon my own political leanings. Have I been ascribing to certain beliefs simply because people who share my views on other unrelated issues hold those beliefs? Recently, I volunteered to usher for All Governments Lie, a political documentary shown at the Cornell Cinema. The film featured a host of reputable journalists and scholars whose views on the mainstream media and President Obama were very different from my own, and whose stances were extremely well researched and supported by their own investigations. Viewing this film made me realize that I should make sure to diversify my political news sources and ensure that I hear many different opinions on the same topic. Hopefully this will help me develop more informed opinions on various political issues, instead of blindly adhering to the position of my party.