Several political experts and students discussed an array of issues at BridgeUWYO’s panel event last week, ranging from domestic and foreign policy to patriotism and polarization.
Amidst a time of shifting opinions and contentious elections, panelists were asked what they think the future of policy will look like. Young Americans for Liberty Chapter President JW Rzeszut expressed concern at the matter. “I think that this is actually a bit of a terrifying issue because… I don’t really have an answer to it,” he said. “I don’t know what the future of our foreign policy is going to look like.” He said there may be a shift away from interventionist policy in younger generations, citing bipartisan skepticism of the US’ involvement in the Israel-Palestine conflict. “I think non-interventionism as it relates to that specific issue is going to be something that’s a lot bigger, but I also see equal skepticism…towards our intervention and affiliations and support for various other conflicts going on throughout the world.”
School of Politics, Public Affairs and International Studies (SPPAIS) Professor Jean Anne Garrison said public opinion data supports Rzeszut’s statement. She added that the next president will inherit a “context internationally where the United States is not as influential an actor as it has been previously.” She said it will be a “complicated picture” for whomever is elected and that they will necessarily be limited in their actions toward foreign conflicts. “We have a Congress that needs to reassert its role in these issues,” she concluded.
Visiting SPPAIS Professor and former Burkina Faso Ambassador Tom Dougherty agreed, stating that the next commander-in-chief will not be as free to enact interventionist policy as they may desire. “The military is not able at present to fight a two-front war,” he said. “We’re not meeting targets even for basic recruitment in the military.”
SPPAIS Assistant Lecturer Eric Nigh said, “Maybe this is the season for us to do less.” He balanced this by saying there are advantages to mitigating the influence of hostile countries in vulnerable regions. “I do think there’s room for disengagement for sure, but with wisdom,” he said, “knowing that there are things we still have to maintain engagement with if we want to make sure that things don’t go completely south.”
A new batch of panelists then discussed patriotism. SPPAIS Professor Gregg Cawley began the discourse with a joke: “Ask three college professors to define patriotism and you’ll get seven different answers.” In the spirit of the joke, he did not define patriotism, asking instead whether it entailed unswerving loyalty to political leaders, or if it was broad enough to allow criticism thereof.
College of Business Assistant Professor Matt Burgess said, “I think patriotism is four things, and at least three of them are good.” He identified the first as a feeling probably derived from biology used for place attachment. The second, he said, is necessity. “There’s all kinds of evidence in political science and economics that if you don’t have a strong shared identity… you can’t provide public goods.” He said the third is rooted in the fact that most of the nation’s flaws “exist and are worse almost everywhere else in time and space.” Additionally, he said, most positive American traits are uniquely good. The final trait, he said, is the definition of the country’s shared identity in a non-inclusive way. He said this is a flaw and a possible origin for the nation’s conflict between patriotism and nationalism.
Saint identified patriotism by quoting Theodore Roosevelt, “It’s always loving your country and giving your government credit when credit is due.”
In the final panel, BridgeUWYO President Ven Meester said polarization leads to apathy, as young people see arguments and lose interest. In contrast, he said, Americans should be polarized on smaller scale politics, taking stances on local, relevant issues.
Bridge Vice President Hayden Mackenzie disagreed, claiming polarization is not an individual, but a tribal issue. He said it is possible for two disagreeing individuals to respectfully disagree, but that the formation of groups can complicate the process. Why, he asked, should someone engage in discourse when it is possible to turn around and receive confirmation from a group.
Burgess disagreed, saying people can be drawn by emotion toward polarizing material. Meester followed by saying polarization has been mistakenly conflated with being opinionated. It is important, he said, that people can express their issues in conversation. “What we should be doing is encouraging them to sit in a room and have conversations.” Mackenzie said that this system is imperfect, but it is still worth attempting to build a foundation on which to have civilized discussion.
