All liberals are leeches. They’re lazy, incompetent and allergic to work.
Hopefully those first statements grabbed your attention. They’re outlandish claims, right? It’s unfair to generalize an entire group of people based on a stereotype. Yet, we do it habitually, often regardless of our position on the political spectrum. And there’s one word that acts as an enabler: all. It’s only three, seemingly innocuous letters. But its use has become a crutch in discourse, one that stifles substantive policy discussions and leads to conversations fraught with sweeping generalities.
One recent, glaring example comes to mind. A few weeks ago, I was relaxing at my apartment with friends, some of whom are conservative, along with my roommate and his girlfriend, who are both liberal. Eventually, we started discussing politics, which isn’t out of the ordinary. These are polarizing times, and it is hard to shy away from everything that’s happening in the country right now.
But on this night the conversation – or lack thereof – was brief, not lasting longer than a few minutes. At some point, one conservative friend made a verbal jab at my roommate’s girlfriend by making fun of liberals. In retaliation, plainly annoyed, she dropped the big one: “Well, all conservatives are racist!”
Oh boy. It was only a matter of time before we arrived here.
Calling someone a racist is an allegation that should not be taken lightly under any circumstances. Yet this retort was top of her list; the first in line pulled out of her armory of potential accusations. She resorted to it with grace and ease, no need to think twice. But instead of shooting down that initial remark sensibly and accurately, she hit the entire room with napalm. The move completely killed any chance of good discourse. The discussion soon fizzled.
This incident made me think of how frequently we as a society take this debilitating approach to debate. It is tried and true: Look across the aisle at people standing on the other side and label them as all the same, comprised of qualities and beliefs we find reprehensible. But simply doing this is lazy and naïve; misguided and inane. It brings about lots of shouting and name-calling while yielding little progress.
And it’s made possible by that one, pesky three-letter word. It leaves no room for nuance. It doesn’t account for distinction. When we group extravagant amounts of people under one all-encompassing umbrella, we instantly dehumanize them. It’s much easier to attack an ideology we dislike than it is to take the time to listen to the people who support it. Those vitriolic, name-calling ad hominem attacks? It’s an escape route; an easy defense mechanism to shut down others without ever hearing what they have to say.
Both sides are guilty of this. It would do each some good to look in a mirror. Many liberals, despite often priding themselves on “tolerance,” are just as narrow-minded toward opposing viewpoints as the conservatives they rail against, as has been evidenced during campus protests against conservative speakers. Likewise, plenty of conservatives are just as sensitive as the liberals they complain about. Look no further than our president, whose face perpetually turns from orange to red after every Saturday Night Live sketch.
In this fiercely divided political climate, it is easy to dismiss those we perceive as different as stupid or uninformed. We become entombed in our beliefs and rarely step outside to see what’s going on elsewhere. It starts with a conversation. Many people hear, but few actually listen.
Refrain from using the word “all,” and make an effort to understand people who believe differently. If not, you are just as imprudent as the ignorance you claim to hate.
Brian Lee is a UF English Senior. His column appears on Thursdays.
