Conservative Club was a step in the right direction

Started in the fall of 2017, Conservative Club served as a counterbalance to Aragon’s liberal atmosphere. A majority of the club’s members were actually liberals who had come to talk with people of different viewpoints.

This semester, most of the outspoken non-conservative members of the club moved to the new club Fems4Dems and, seeing as there would no longer be people representing an opposing viewpoint, the leaders of Conservative Club disbanded the organization. Although short-lived, Conservative Club was a place where people could engage in meaningful discussion, and I hope this legacy can be carried on in all of Aragon’s political clubs.

While they may engender controversy, the existence of groups that encourage active political discussion are beneficial to open political discourse and moderatism.
In this regard, Conservative Club had an advantage in promoting discussion. This is because dissent promotes discussion. Opposing opinions allow for a debate.

In the many meetings I attended at Conservative Club, discussion was its best when it broached controversial American issues, such as gun control, where differing opinions allowed for spirited debates.

Although they might not have been able to come to a consensus during the 30 minutes of lunch, the two extremes of a small-government pro-gun Republican and a more moderate Republican supporting limits on some of the more destructive guns and ammunition were able to hold a legitimate political discussion because they were able to properly understand the viewpoint held by the other side.

The benefits of constructive controversy reach beyond the club. Conservative Club’s mere existence encouraged students to be more open to different viewpoints.

Although it is possible to have a proper discussion without having such differing opinions, it certainly helps to create actual discussions that don’t fall into the trap of having a “discussion” where everyone is in agreement on a point, no matter how outlandish it is.

The kind of ideological diversity also dissuades the polarization of opinions. When ideologies are confined to an echo chamber, where the only voices present are in agreement, people become committed to their way of thinking, and are unlikely to compromise. They stop considering others’ opposing viewpoints, and view their ideas as an inarguable truth.

An echo chamber of this type can also lead to political intolerance, as people from the echo chamber actively reject holders of opposing viewpoints as “other.” This can often be the case at Aragon.

I’m troubled that when a group of my friends from Aragon found a signed picture of Trump that a friend’s parent owned, they immediately saw it as a mark of shame instead of an impressive memento signed by the president of the United States.

Although it is perfectly reasonable to dislike our current president and his policies in this way, it requires a proper discussion to justify, something that an echo chamber prevents from happening.

Thankfully, Conservative Club was not merely another ideological echo chamber inside of the larger Aragon echo chamber. Conservative Club’s purpose was debatement, not affirmation of conservative beliefs. To support this goal they made an effort to facilitate discourse as they hosted debate days where they encouraged everyone to discuss their respective opinions on political issues.

By promoting this sort of active political discourse, Conservative Club was able to help Aragon move away from being an ideological echo chamber. A more open discussion of ideas is fostered by this diversifying of opinions. This escape from a political echo chamber encourages a reasonable sharing of ideas, and by extension, more political compromise and understanding across the aisle.

Although the club may be gone, its legacy of promoting discussion can live on. Fems4Dems and other political clubs have the opportunity to continue to break out of the walls of our echo chamber if they are willing to deal with the discomfort of disagreement.