If the recent controversy over Bob McDonnell’s senior thesis is any indication, public figures will be subject to increasingly thorough vetting of their academic careers and papers in the future and everything we write, from Facebook notes to essays, will be fair game.

We’ve heard cautionary tales of College students not getting jobs due to idiotic Facebook pictures.  But this has a simple solution – remove the pictures.  Removing does no harm and keeping offers no help.

But in raising controversial issues and voicing opinions, there is a harm associated with timidity- the campus environment and conversation is not as engaging.  Say what you will about Charles Johnson, CMC ‘11, but at least he has the balls to write what he thinks and the campus discussion, by and large, is better for it.

And so I’ve been thinking whether or not to officially brand myself as a “Democrat.”  Yes, I’m politically left of center but not by much (I’ve argued at CAP conferences in favor of school vouchers and against EFCA…).  While I run the blog for the Port Side, with the exception of Jonathan I’m easily the most conservative student on staff.  And so calling myself a Democrat?  That seems sketchy.

The advantages to not being branded are obvious – you seem to not have partisan entanglements and appear to come from a place of “rationality” and “moderation.”   In future job pursuits I wouldn’t be disqualified for my political beliefs.  Though one of my Facebook networks is “Obama for America,” I know enough moderates and even Republicans who worked on the campaign and voted for the man that I’m okay with it.  But recently I was appointed Platform Director for the California Young Democrats.

Why did I accept?  Because in the future I’d like to work in Government, and if I have to pick a team I pick not-Republican.  That leaves me with the Dems.  And so I’ve been sitting on my new email address, platform@youngdems.org, for some time.  If I join the Facebook network, I’m a Democrat.  Anyone searching my name will see that.

But maybe the path of least association isn’t the best path.  So I’ll be a Democrat – does that mean I can’t look rationally at an issue?  Does that mean I can’t be measured and moderate?  I would hope not.

So for those interested in potentially blogging, either for the Port Side or the Claremont Conservative, and for those who want to write controversial opinions but who are afraid of the google-search – sack up.  Down the line it probably won’t hurt to have an opinion so long as you can rationally defend it.  And if times change and public opinion changes, hopefully your employer will give you a chance to explain your thinking.  If not, he’s probably a douche and you probably don’t want to work for him anyway.  In the end, there are worse things to be disqualified for than having an opinion (and even when your opinion is unpopular, you can still raise $200,000 + in cash-on-hand overnight).

It all started when the Lefties decided to talk to the teachers about the changing relationship between the two groups. Andy Flu, speaking for the Lefties, had this to say: “When I became Head Lefty, I thought we needed a more open discussion about cooties and playground life with the Indies.   This job is harder than people think.  Sure we might not have accomplished all of our goals, but … – but I think we’re cool.  That’s what matters, right?” Chucky Jo was in no mood for pussyfooting, and quickly riled up his fellow “Indies,” starting a chant of “Facts! Facts! We’ve got lots of random Facts!” in response.

An Indie, who commented only on repeated assurances of anonymity, lamented the strident turn in discourse: “I don’t get why he has to be so angry all the time.  We’re all just kids looking to enjoy a little recess, and I don’t know if the Lefties are going to let me on their jungle gym anymore.”  (Note this farce was in no way supposed to be a commentary of the writing ability of the parties involved.  I’m confident all of them can write at above a second grade level.)

Seriously though, sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.  How else do you explain articles like this?  Remember when you were five or so and the coolest thing would be to try on your parents’ clothes and play grown up?  For some reason these people want to relive that.  They bitch and moan about this or that journalistic rule, who deleted what comment when, and have the audacity to call it political discourse.  It’s immature and childlike.

What really pisses me off, though, is this implicit assumption that when these clowns talk about political discourse on campus that they are the political discourse on campus– elevated and made official by their institutions. They wrap themselves in the garb of mature journalism, when what they’re really doing is far from it:

“My piece calls not only for increased dialogue but also for civility. Commenting on and responding to Johnson’s arguments is fine; I encourage that. But let’s try not to use this comment section to bash him as a person and student. That’s not the type of dialogue in which the Port Side seeks to engage conservatives.” – Michelle Kahn

With all due respect, you simply don’t get it, Michelle.  You proved that when you when you ignored your own suggestions for discourse and   wrote this.  No one cares about how you and Andrew work together.  You’re supposed to act professionally.  The standard is presupposed, but you’re not exactly up to it if in the same breath you’re making snarky comments about Charles and the editorial process at the CI.  This incessant bickering about trivial bullshit is the problem, and by wading into the mud yourself, you just heighten it.

I think an anonymous commentator, closet conservative, puts this point most succinctly:

“i don’t care what’s factually correct or not– all the bickering caused by that fu**ing blog and its author(s) make cmc a worse place”

A little “improper” or “immature,” I suppose, but man does this guy hit the nail on the head. I know you’re not supposed to say I told you so, but this all goes back to my earlier point: Charles may exemplify what is wrong with campus discourse – the existence of this pack of little boys (and girls) who incessantly cry wolf, but there are necessarily two sides to this petty debate.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t discuss politics to win hearts and minds.  I’m not running a perpetual one man political campaign.  I’m not so arrogant as to think that my political views are some objective right that need– nay, must– be expounded.  Rather I talk politics because I find that discussing my and others’ views adds depth and understanding to my own.

Bringing the point back to the CI and the Portside: I’m no psychologist, but maybe what they really need to heal their pointless and insignificant feud is to stop writing, and start hugging.  You’ve have to learn to crawl before you can learn to walk.

A few articles to check out:

“Running on Empty” by Wyatt Mackenzie

“How He Did It: a Lesson of Pragmatic Politics in the Network Age” by Abhi Nemani

“The Bernard Field Station” by Christopher Gurney

The Claremont Political Union was created as a confluence of the Claremont Democrats and Claremont Republicans clubs, and CMC’s two partisan newspapers, the Claremont Port Side, and the Claremont Independent. According to President of the Claremont Democrats, Elaine Maloney (SC ‘08), “People might be involved in politics, but might not be allegiant to a party. But this is a good place to start for the same goal.” Mike Whatley (CMC ‘11), Vice-President of Operations for the Claremont Republicans, echoed this goal: “It is a good thing to come together, and hold events together in a friendly environment.”

Yet, the debate over the choice of TV channel almost turned the event hostile. A half-dozen Republicans charged the party’s organizers with partisanship because they chose CNN over Fox News. To appease both sides, the CPU decided to switch between channels every 30 minutes. Yet, Mr. Whatley told me that “CNN was better anyway.”

By 6 PM, The Hub was full of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike, and voting in California was still open for another two hours. Sometime after 6 p.m., CNN made a projection—Barack Obama had won Delaware. The crowd of Obama supporters was glowing and cheering. On the other side, the response was more hushed during Republican projections—when John McCain won New York, the crowd remained mostly unmoved with a few scattered claps and boos.

None of the organizations in the CPU endorsed a candidate as a club, and are now focused on future events and funding. They are planning an “unconventional partisan debate” during Alumni Weekend, and are seeking funding as an organization (a consortium within a consortium?), instead of using funds from each member club. This time, club funds bought sets of red, white, and blue balloons and a handy delegate chart that was much easier to follow than that of the Situation Room at CNN.

Breaking from the usual CMC party scene, the clubs did not buy alcohol with their funds. “No one here is looking to get smashed on a Tuesday night,” said Ms. Maloney. Still, a few students improvised with Chardonnay (Obama supporters).

In CMC’s community of political involvement and partisanship, many students loved the bipartisan atmosphere. Molly Doyle (CMC ‘09) said, “I’m just so excited to be here. This event would only happen at CMC.”