Uniting a divided nation: how to find a “Common Ground” in the midst of extreme adversity
By Gavin Meade ’20, Staff Writer
Editor’s note: the views expressed on the Opinion pages are those of our writers and are not necessarily representative of the Editorial Board.
One of the most important things about Hamilton is, in my mind at least, the ability for an open dialogue between students and faculty. This open dialogue allows for respectful critique of the opinions and edicts of administration, professors, and young men and women at Hamilton College. In this spirit then I will examine and discuss Professor Westmaas’ recent Letter to the Editor regarding the Common Ground initiative.
I agree with Professor Westmaas on his critique of President Trump, and heartily applaud the questions raised by Westmaas concerning the actions of our current Commander-in-Chief. Our opinions diverge on the concept of “common ground.” I reject the notion that this is not a time for academic discourse. Now, more than ever, we should be able to work with people we disagree with. Just because our President seems incapable of condemning domestic terror after an attack in Charlottesville does not mean that two flag-bearers of the Republican and Democratic parties cannot get together in a room and have a discussion. If we wait for a united condemnation of bigotry and racism from the White House we will be waiting and twiddling our thumbs until the cows come home. There is common ground, and we do not have to dig for it. Neither Rove nor Axelrod are Trump supporters and neither support the rhetoric flowing from Donald Trump. I’ll take an opportunity to prove this by examining the statements and attitudes reported by Karl Rove in recent months.
In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal in July, Rove wrote, “[Donald Trump] lacks the focus or self-discipline to do the basic work required of a president.” Additionally, two days ago (at the time of this publication) he remarked that Trump’s attitude and comments towards the NFL will result in him “walking away from this a loser.” Lastly, and most convincingly for me, Rove decried Trump’s response to the horrors in Charlottesville. When interviewed by Fox News, his biggest point of contention is one that Professor Westmaas brought up in his article; Trump blamed “many sides.” Rove had an opportunity to cast aspersions and sew division and he did not take that opportunity. Many people on both sides of the aisle vehemently opposed Trump’s response and continue to decry his actions.
Interestingly enough, it is not as if David Axelrod has stood steadfast against Donald Trump. In 2016, he invited Trump to appear on his radio show and then in July of 2017 in an interview with CNN, Axelrod remarked, “I have no doubt that there are times when people are unfair to Donald Trump…and he has chosen the media as a straw man to operate against.”
The point in showing Rove critiquing Trump and Axelrod not standing against him is that neither man is bound by party lines. Their opinions diverge and change, this divergence allowing for the acknowledgment and construction of a common ground.
Trump does not speak for every Republican just as Axelrod does not speak for every Democrat. We will never have a completely unified response and a unanimous banner to rally under; that is just not how American politics operates. The opportunity for Axelrod and Rove to have a conversation and for students and faculty to have the chance to be active observers is a unique one afforded to us by Hamilton College and not one that should be taken lightly. The critiques against Trump’s rhetoric flow faster and thicker than is possible for one man to drown out.
We have to be able to come together and sit down at a table. When we push off opportunities for two men, who by all measures should be political enemies, to sit down and respectfully discuss the affairs of the nation, we stand in the way of the same progress that we scream for. For all we know, at the meeting both Rove and Axelrod will fulfill Professor Westmaas’ hope for a united stand against racism and bigotry. If we do not create and support an opportunity for this to happen because we think that it will not, then it surely will not.
