RELATED PROJECT
RELATED ISSUE
BLOGGER
Ryan Price is a senior at Drake University majoring in Politics with a minor in Rhetoric/Communication Studies From a very young age, Ryan Price has always been fascinated with American democracy....
Where do young people come down on questions of faith, values, and public life? How do they relate their values to public policy issues including education, economic inequality, and the environment? These questions, critically important for the 2012 election, are at the center of a campus conversation being organized by the Berkley Center and Georgetown University. This blog features an ongoing conversation about these issues between students selected as Millennial Values Fellows through a national competition. You can read and comment on their blogs here.
To learn more about the project, visit the Campus Conversation on Values page.
OTHER POSTS
Millennials on Social Media and Politics
November 15, 2012
Millennials on Social Issues and Diversity
November 12, 2012
Hira Baig (Rice) on Why the Presidential Election Matters to Millennials
November 7, 2012
Millennials on Religion and Interfaith Work
November 7, 2012
Ryan Price (Drake) on E Pluribus Duo
November 6, 2012
Mohammad Usman (DePauw) on Unpredictable Millennials
November 5, 2012
Millennials on Affirmative Action Policy
November 3, 2012
Seth Warner (Vassar) on What Happens as the "God Gap" Widens
November 2, 2012
Josina De Raadt (Dordt) on How Social Media Is Like Wii Bowling
October 31, 2012
Zachary Yentzer (Arizona State) on the Next Greatest Generation
October 29, 2012
Brice Ezell (George Fox) on Post-Racial America? Race, Millennials, and the 2012 Election
October 25, 2012
Tyler Bishop (Vanderbilt) on a Future of Hashtags #whatitmeansforus
October 23, 2012
Brice Ezell (George Fox) on How the People Can Heal a “Divided,” Partisan Nation
October 4, 2012
Hira Baig (Rice) on Religion and American Democracy
October 4, 2012
Tyler Bishop (Vanderbilt) on How It’s All About Relatability: Voter Turnout
October 3, 2012
Josina De Raadt (Dordt) on Mistaking Politics for a Hollywood Blockbuster
October 2, 2012
Mohammad Usman (DePauw) on the Internet Solution
October 1, 2012
>> more
AT THE CENTER
EVENTS (103)
Symposium on Global Development and Faith-Inspired Organizations in the Muslim World
December 16, 2007
December 16, 2007
PUBLICATIONS (57)
INTERVIEWS (179)
A Discussion with Mona Atia, Consultant, Gerhart Center for Philanthropy and Civil Society, American University in Cairo
December 14, 2007
December 14, 2007
A Discussion with Roksana Bahramitash, Director of Research, University of Montreal
December 2, 2007
December 2, 2007
LETTERS (201)
POSTS (47)
RELATED RESOURCES: MUSLIM
Ryan Price (Drake) on In Our Party We Trust: Why Debate When We Can Dialogue?
September 28, 2012
As much as Jon Stewart makes me believe it is, the extreme partisanship
of today is no laughing matter. It might be humorous if it were limited only to the
halls of Congress, but today, the bitter partisanship plaguing American
democracy extends to every big city and small town across the United States.
Look no further than the billboards dotting highways from sea to shining sea accusing us of committing such extremes as bigotry and murder.
The fact is that partisanship is meant to work, and it certainly can.
Partisanship is productive to the extent that it fosters vigorous debate in the
United States. Conversely, however, partisanship is harmful to the extent that it
limits collaborative policymaking. Unfortunately, today the scales tilt
overwhelmingly towards the harmful side.
If this were not so, broadcast news would not have needed countdown clocks that nearly reached zero last August when the United States was scheduled to lose all borrowing authority. If this were not so, our personal politics would be more nuanced than what can fit on a bumper sticker. If this were not so, Olympia Snowe would stay in the Senate, Obama would lose his photoshopped-Nazi mustache, and Romney would be free of the fabricated online stories painting him as a racist.
So how do we fix it? While not audacious enough to believe I have the “silver bullet” to fix all the problem of split screen American politics, I propose one honorable way to begin. I believe responsible journalists and concerned politicians should take a lead by changing the name and format of the “Presidential Debates” this fall to something more closely resembling “Presidential Dialogues.” Albeit a small change, this would shift the paradigm in terms of how our leaders interacted and how our journalists discussed American politics.
There is no doubt that small rhetorical shifts can significantly alter our understanding of political issues. My hope is that it could change our understanding of American politics itself, too. For example, the conceptual difference between “illegal alien” and “undocumented worker” is as vast as the Rocky Mountain Range. We know too that referring to the peace-loving Muslim-Americans around us as “Americans” instead of “potential terrorists” has important repercussions for their citizenship rights. My hope is that encouraging journalists to facilitate “dialogue” this Fall instead of moderating (inevitably partisan) “debate” would have equally important repercussions on the way we perceive the media, our leaders, and ourselves as a people.
Creative policymaking has always led our country in the right direction, and we should not worry to ask our experienced journalists to facilitate such productive dialogue between our politicians.
In fact, we should seriously worry if we continue not to.
If this were not so, broadcast news would not have needed countdown clocks that nearly reached zero last August when the United States was scheduled to lose all borrowing authority. If this were not so, our personal politics would be more nuanced than what can fit on a bumper sticker. If this were not so, Olympia Snowe would stay in the Senate, Obama would lose his photoshopped-Nazi mustache, and Romney would be free of the fabricated online stories painting him as a racist.
So how do we fix it? While not audacious enough to believe I have the “silver bullet” to fix all the problem of split screen American politics, I propose one honorable way to begin. I believe responsible journalists and concerned politicians should take a lead by changing the name and format of the “Presidential Debates” this fall to something more closely resembling “Presidential Dialogues.” Albeit a small change, this would shift the paradigm in terms of how our leaders interacted and how our journalists discussed American politics.
There is no doubt that small rhetorical shifts can significantly alter our understanding of political issues. My hope is that it could change our understanding of American politics itself, too. For example, the conceptual difference between “illegal alien” and “undocumented worker” is as vast as the Rocky Mountain Range. We know too that referring to the peace-loving Muslim-Americans around us as “Americans” instead of “potential terrorists” has important repercussions for their citizenship rights. My hope is that encouraging journalists to facilitate “dialogue” this Fall instead of moderating (inevitably partisan) “debate” would have equally important repercussions on the way we perceive the media, our leaders, and ourselves as a people.
Creative policymaking has always led our country in the right direction, and we should not worry to ask our experienced journalists to facilitate such productive dialogue between our politicians.
In fact, we should seriously worry if we continue not to.