I attended the League of Women Voters candidate forum last Thursday at the Newton City Hall where I was pleasantly surprised by what I gained out of the experience.
I didn’t go because I’m an undecided voter — in fact, I’ve already voted — but I went because of the unique opportunity to potentially subject candidates to questions and witness public figures improvisational speaking styles.
Frankly, I anticipated the forum as an athletic event, a competition, and I, a fan, would either be overcome by confidence and pride or naivety and defeat after the outcome of this battle.
The forum was packed, although in a small venue, and everyone was crammed in, sitting close to each other and forcing many strangers to make small talk with people they wouldn’t ordinarily speak to. Finding a seat was like looking for a seat number in the middle of a bleacher row at an Iowa game.
There were a variety of attendees at the forum from men to women, old to young and business dress to casual. There were an eclectic bunch of people there to learn more about the candidates, their stances and the issues themselves. Some people I knew and some I didn’t but I was glad to see the spectrum.
With around eight questions asked at the event, all candidates spoke to each one, some longer than others, some better than others.
Each candidate showed some type of character, and it was refreshing because many of us only know what they look like from marketing material or what they’ve failed at in the past from a television ad.
The lawyer spoke like a lawyer. The incumbents spoke like incumbents. The educated ones gave exact, informative answers to questions they knew and the less aware gave watered down answers instead. It was interesting to see men’s and women’s debate techniques, although I don’t want to differentiate based on gender.
Regardless, it was a transparent view of the candidates and a look at their personalities. I was reminded they’re all human.
I left with the same affection for the candidates I support and a surprisingly higher acceptance of the others. How could I leave the game tolerant of both teams? That’s no fun.
It’s also not bad.
Lately, politics have been so polarizing. It’s as if we’re to treat parties as if they are Axis and Allies or Iowa and Iowa State. The mentality that we’ve created about choosing sides is restricting, demeaning and jeopardizes our country’s democracy. No wonder nothing (very little) is getting accomplished. This isn’t the Civil War.
While walking home, I was reminded of some graffiti I saw at a London train station. It said, “Great minds don’t think alike.”
Contrary to popular belief, it’s true. Great conversations require great debate among a bunch of unalike people. Maybe it’s better to be surrounded by open ideas, ones we don’t agree with, than to be constantly surrounded by the same beliefs as our own. There’s nothing to gain from continually reinforce our same beliefs. It’s not inclusive, interesting or informative, and it’s far from cooperative.
Don’t be afraid to speak to someone about your beliefs and more importantly don’t be afraid to listen to someone who comes from a different place than you. We don’t have to like each other but we have to respect each other — otherwise, like a game, there’s only winners and losers.