Roman Kavanagh
Opinions Editor
The 2024 presidential election is over and at RIC, a college located in a state known for its blue skew, I feel safe in assuming that you or someone you know might feel unsatisfied with the results. I am one of those people, one who went to bed on Nov. 5 with the notion that it might be days before we know which way the wind is blowing, only to wake up to find that our favorite reality TV star and convict Donald Trump has once again secured control in the most powerful office in the world.
There’s a lot of fearful talk going around, which is something to be analyzed in the coming months. However, one particular piece of rhetoric stuck out to me, which I wanted to talk about today, is the phrase: “Don't let politics ruin your relationships.”
Now here’s a disclaimer: I understand that writing as a self-identified democratic socialist, that the aforementioned “blue skew” has a great effect on me. I also understand that the stereotypical bleeding heart liberal may be showing through, but hear me out on this one.
The United States is experiencing an incredible political bipartisanship—this is undeniable. In times like these, it is more important than ever to be having intersectional conversations and to bridge the “othering” gap of our binary party system. Yet, I still don’t believe that this process is conducive to me keeping contact with the family-friend who posts about pardoning the perpetrators of Jan. 6 in 2024.
The fact is, the intended margins between the Democratic and Republican parties are incredibly different from what they are often described to be. The “conservative” perspective in politics, while linked historically to religious social ideological views, is often portrayed as economically savvy. The Republican that I hear about from sympathizers is always a reasonable, small-government advocate with a dislike for taxes. This portrait is so plain and unoffensive that it seems radical to disagree. The facts are, however, that the Republican agenda—both throughout history and now in recent years—is far more socially inflammatory than described.
On translegislation.com, there is an ongoing map tracking all the anti-transgender bills circulating the U.S. state and federal congresses. In 2024 alone, there have been 664 anti-trans bills, in areas ranging from limiting medical access to transgender kids, to putting teachers who use a kid’s preferred pronouns on the sex offender’s registry.
President Donald Trump, on his campaign website, has recorded videos personally voicing his support for anti-trans measures that have been sweeping the nation. Further, with the majority red Congress and Supreme Court that is projected for us to receive in January, 80 nationwide anti-trans bills are looming overhead, and the incoming cabinet is likely to receive them with open arms. I am a queer, transgender individual who grew up all my life in a deep blue state. The concept of grappling personally with these radical conservative measures has never been truly feasible to me until now. But with this new administration, I fear anything is possible.
Donald Trump has been a scourge on the name of the United States for eight years. He will now be receiving four more to embarrass us. As a convicted felon with dozens of sexual abuse allegations, a plethora of racist rhetoric plaguing his political career and a ruthless hatred of immigrants, Donald Trump is a poor idol at best. This brings us to the crux of the issue: over half of our country voted for him.
There is of course the consideration of true choice in a two-party system. The Democratic party in the United States is by no means a truly “leftist” party. Kamala Harris is also a considerably conservative candidate in her own ways, one, in particular, being her shameless indolence in all questioning regarding the matter of the Palestinian genocide. Third parties, while better, are often moot, and the fight to get them to an operable point is valiant but so far improbable.
As much as I’d like to live in a society in which all parties are serious and respectable considerations, I find myself living in one with clearly defined moral disparities tacked onto each. In making a choice, the simplest guideline that I can impose for myself is on which is the unacceptable choice. The party whose campaign slogan for the past three elections has been on enforcing the delusional American dream over the protection of the subjugated people of today…they are the unacceptable choice. There is too great a level of cognitive dissonance associating with people who I could claim to “agree to disagree” with, who I could elect to “not talk politics” and turn the other cheek to. For when we live in a world where a teacher could get their name placed next to pedophiles for uttering the singular pronoun “they,” I cannot compromise.
Though superior, third parties are frequently pointless, and although the battle to bring them to a feasible position is heroic, it is still unlikely. drift boss