An After Party: Politicization and Third Parties [Part 2]

In a previous post, I explained how political parties started in America and why we are stuck in a two-party system. To continue the conversation, I will discuss the political climate of today and what this may mean for the future of political parties.

As the United States grew older, it exposed itself to more difficult political issues to grapple with. Strength of government and economy came first as the most fundamental of political matters, and these are the issues that still are held to be the most important areas of policy by presidents, politicians, and pundits today. Looking at how far we have come since then, perhaps Washington was right to warn us about political parties, no matter what they were in the beginning. From just the second round of political parties in the early to mid-1800s, during which Jacksonian Democrats and Whigs reigned, the menu of political controversies expanded exponentially to include: slavery, western expansionism, nationalism, anti-elitism, working class struggles, immigration. Today, we juggle everything from political correctness to gendered bathrooms.

Now, there are some things that must be understood when it comes to the massive amount of political issues we encounter today. Yes, as certain topics became more and more pressing in America, maybe political parties had no other choice but to come in at some point and make their stances clear. And difficult enough as it is to have only two political parties represent positions on a myriad of multi-faceted issues, what really has changed the political air of today is politicization.

According to Oxford Dictionaries, politicization means "the action of causing an activity or event to become political in character." Not only has politics managed to place laws governing so many areas of life people in the 18th century never would have imagined would be political, but politics has also become so pervasive that literally anything can be made into a political statement. These two ideas go hand-in-hand, but does the prior necessitate the latter? I'm not so sure, especially considering the technology of today. Television and movies have allowed us to watch programs and films from across the world, but those industries have always had some push to be monitored – take for example the 1930s Hays Code or film ratings by the Motion Picture Association of America. What really makes politics so accessible and applicable today are the Internet and our devices.

With the expansive and lightning-fast nature of the Internet, anything and everything is available. People can keep up with political movements happening across the globe, read translated texts, chat with people anywhere about policies, voice their opinions with little restraint. We can educate ourselves on any subject from countless angles, and that's one of the reasons I like that we can learn about politics through the web. I admit I learned most of what I knew in my first couple years of political awareness via the Internet, and although I had to learn to take everything I read with a grain of salt and some fact-checking, I understand why the Internet has become such a political place.

Our technological devices offer the amplification of a different side of politics: history and transparency. People can record or take pictures of anything on their smartphones; more and more police are using body cams. Emails, video and audio recordings, and other cellphone data can all be used against someone. Combined with the Internet, it is easy enough to find out just about anything and hold individuals accountable for what they do and say.

And people have. For instance, Weekend 2 of Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival, the wildly popular three-day affair in Indio, California, is currently happening, bringing about another wave of criticism to Coachella's very distant owner, Philip Anschutz. I say "distant" because Coachella is held by Goldenvoice, which was acquired by Anschutz Entertainment Group, whose owner probably spends very little time concerning himself with what a bunch of twenty-somethings in the desert do this time of year. But thanks to tax filings and local press releases, people seem to know exactly where this man stands in politics and have festival goers questioning whether or not to fund someone they do not agree with.

Being able to check the receipts is not necessarily a bad thing, but where should politicization end? I believe quite heavily that politics affects everything and everything affects politics, but that does not mean I feel the need to catalogue every single thing in my life and look into any way it or its components could be related to a political matter. I understand there is a limit that I have to be politically aware but also function in everyday life. This piece from Politico addresses this very issue and gives a great overview of how impossible it is to avoid politics now: your friends on social media, favorite brands, local stores, and beloved celebrities all have something to share. Is that too far?

I would occasionally like some relief from this cold reality – a good movie, a simple trip to the grocery store. After all, if even the parts of American life that unite us are politicized – even baseball and brunch – how do we hold the country together? What do we share when our most innocent pastimes are reduced to partisanship?

The politicization of everything is, I feel, irreversible at this point, but this could be the answer to the two-party quandary. Now that everything can easily be construed as political, whether it be where you eat or where you listen to music, can two parties really hold up all these countless issues? As we explore the depth of issues in the 21st century, for instance, not just leaving feminism at voting rights but discussing representation, dress codes, objectification in advertising, media, and entertainment, abortion and inequalities in healthcare, gender-motivated violence, equal pay, and parental leave, can American citizens really be sustained and satisfied by just two parties? Doubtful. Maybe what we need to break the two-party system is not a forceful third party platform but the simple fact that there are too many possible platforms to have.

A general realization of the cons of a two-party system will obviously not be enough to actually bring about multiple, equally-strong parties. The two-party system has been supported by Americans with an amazing consistency, and I can't say that without some serious cultural and structural changes (such as to voting procedures, which I went into in my previous post), we will suddenly have at least three competing parties. However, the 2016 election proved to me that there is something that does need serious changing. It left a bitter taste in almost everyone's mouth, regardless of who they voted for. Seeing the trajectory we are on now, I predict seeing a greater third-party presence in the elections, local and national, in the near future.

Starting the Party (System) [Part 1]

The popular thing to say when it comes to American political parties is that none other than our esteemed first President, George Washington, was against them. In light of the mounting tensions between the parties, I thought this would be a great time to introduce our political party system on this blog.

Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of American politics knows that they come down to two main parties: Democrats and Republics. The existence of such groups was one of the most confusing aspects of my introduction to politics. I had come into politics on the principle of issues only to learn that political parties divided the people in two. Entire families restrict themselves to a single party! Presidents run on party platforms! People check Democratic or Republican candidates all down the ballot without even researching them! It's hard to not wonder how a two-party system, or a party system at all, is an adequate way of representing the multitude of perspectives held by the American people. George Washington said it well in his farewell address:

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations... are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction... to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

Political parties distract us from individual issues and the diverse opinions of the people by packaging the interests of powerful minorities and forcing the people between them, otherwise known as party platforms. This attitude, the simple game of win or lose between the two parties or the "projects of faction," is what makes everyday citizens despise politics. It's what makes politics not about the people.

Think for a moment how many general issues are involved in the running of a country. Power of federal versus state government, taxes, education, social justice and equality, environmental sustainability, foreign policy, to name a few. And just in one of those issues are a multitude of sub-issues. Take education for example. How much should government, especially local government, have a say in how schools teach their students? What kind of programs (after-school, art, physical education, etc.) should or should not be funded? What about foreign languages in schools? How can postsecondary education be made more affordable? Bring in all the countless other issues in politics. There is simply no feasible Venn diagram in which half the country can have the exact same stance on all of these issues.

But parties did not start with the extensive platforms of today; that is what parties have become, and it's an effect we feed into in every election. Political parties, which had their birth in this country during our very first election in 1796, to the disappointment of Washington I'm sure, were very different from the parties we know today. They did not have the range of controversial topics we have now such as abortion and other healthcare matters, LGBT rights, police brutality. The Federalists were staunch supporters of the Constitution, a strong federal government, and pro-business and pro-banking, and the Democratic-Republicans were more diverse in ethnicity and background and against these grand commercial ideas. But when it came down to it, who really defined these interest groups? Alexander Hamilton, whose economic policies defined the Federalists, and Thomas Jefferson, who rejected these policies. It really was a smaller set of interests for smaller groups of people. [For a more detailed timeline of our party system, see here]

The approach to party politics was also much more delicate then because the country had just come out of a war. It only makes sense that something as divisive as political parties would not be recommended, but as Jefferson astutely noted,

Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers form them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves.

There is definitely some bias written into point 2, but the message is clear. Essentially, the question comes down to how powerful we want our government to be. There is a key lens to this problem that is missing here. It isn't just a matter of where to place the power but how to protect the power. In democratic societies, we want to protect everyone's rights, ensuring our life, liberty, and property/pursuit of happiness. Everyone gets freedom of speech. Everyone can own private property. Everyone can vote. But at the same time, someone needs to be able to enforce these rights, to come in and say, "Hey, you've infringed on this other person's rights, so back up." That necessitates government oversight.

So if we acknowledge that this pro or against strong government idea will always be a part of our political discourse, and we somehow get our parties to not define themselves by that, is there a way we can have a diverse party system based on just where voters stand on individual issues?

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Political scientists put this situation under Duverger's law, which says "the simple-majority single-ballot system favors the two-party system." He follows this by saying "the simple-majority system with second ballot and proportional representation favors multi-partyism." As this paper in The American Political Science Review suggests, in single-winner plurality countries, the end game is simply getting a majority of the votes. The most efficient way to do this is to align with one of two main parties at the cost of more complex platforms.

Think of it this way. In a perfect world in which everyone votes, the majority would be 50+% of the people. If voters feel constrained to only two parties, then it is easier to achieve this majority. 100%/2 = 50%, so you are starting closer to the goal. The more equally strong parties there are, the harder it is for any of them to a) overtake competing parties and b) hold a simple majority at all. 100/3 = ~33%, 100/4 = 25%, and so on. Here's some data that supports this idea:

Solutions to this problem of a two-party lock have of course been offered: runoff voting, proportional voting, range voting. The questions that necessarily follow are: is it worth it in America, and is it feasible? I hope to discuss this further in a future post.

What Keeps Me Up At Night

I grew up in a household in which politics was not discussed, not because it was impolite or because conversations would devolve into screaming matches, but because politics apparently did not concern people like me. My upbringing told me that politics was reserved for politicians, elites, academics, movers and shakers. You can imagine my shock when I began to delve into the world of politics and realized just how much politics did affect me. From the prejudices I faced from age 4 to the food that came to my table, politics had been shaping my life without me even thinking about it. And then I looked at everything that was going wrong with this world and the community around me. As I clambered out of my sheltered perspective, I found myself asking again and again: if this country and its democracy are so great, why do we have so many problems?

A while back, this clip from the opening scene of The Newsroom was circulating, and I was really struck by it. At the time, I could not quite articulate how I felt in response to it, but today, I can start to solidify these thoughts.

I am cautious about the nostalgic approach to America, about how great it "used to be" (one reason being that the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia can romanticize pretty much anything, and American history is not exactly immaculate). But what resonates with me, and what I am sure resonates with most of the country right now, is that every feeling we have in reaction to our country, our sadness, our disappointment, our anger, our hubris, our hope, is often rooted in our pride and love for this country. Why wouldn't we want our country to be the best it can be? Why wouldn't we get upset if it didn't? As we move forward in this discussion, I want the reader to keep this in mind. Voicing our concerns about this country is patriotic. It would be neglectful to do otherwise. Will McAvoy, the protagonist of this show, only really scrapes the surface when he says:

We were able to be all these things and do all these things because we were informed... the first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one. America is not the greatest country in the world anymore.

Some cited statistics I found on my own: of 35 developed countries studied, America ranked 34th in child poverty rates. A study from 2013 determined that the United States had the highest incarceration rate in the world and also had the highest prison population of a whopping 2,239,751 people. The U.S. ranks first in deaths by violence and has more of such deaths than the next three countries combined. It also ranks third in income disparity. A 2012 study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found that while the U.S. spends more on education per student than most countries, it performed at average levels in reading and science and below average, 27th out of the 34 countries surveyed, in fact, in math.

So, first step: recognize there is a problem. Second step: identify where the problem is coming from. Is it just about being informed, as McAvoy asserts?

I do not believe that it is a coincidence that voter turnout in this country is lower than in most developed states, with under 54% of the voting-eligible population coming out to vote in 2012 and about 58% this past November. The root of the problem, however, is not people refusing to vote. The U.S. actually has the seventh highest percentage of registered voters and ranks fifth in extent of possible civic engagement. Juxtaposed with this is the fact that less than half of the population bothers to engage in a single civic activity a year, and almost a quarter do not discuss politics. Clearly, the conversation about American democracy does not end with voter turnout; something else tells citizens that they do not need to be as involved with politics and civic duties.

As I went through my "political awakening," rather than seeing only ignorance, I began to notice how people around me actually dealt with (or did not deal with) politics. I met children that would spew terrifying assertions repeated verbatim from their parents. I had friends who would alter their views depending on who they were with just to please others. Some were raised to never discuss politics because the issues are too contentious, and others still think politics do not apply to them. And the general rule of thumb is to not bring up politics at all. While I understand why people may want to resist getting into huge arguments every day, the problem with American democracy is that we don't teach people how to actually practice it, preventing them from engaging with crucial political matters that will impact millions of citizens. And this is distinct from just being informed about the political issues of the day; no good comes from knowledge if it is not exercised.

We need to stop keeping people from discussing difficult issues publicly. We need to stop trying to make politics a competition, a game, a source of entertainment. We need to urge people to realize their personal stake in politics, to educate themselves, to pursue solutions because the problems of today are not going to magically fix themselves. And with a democratic system, the people have the power to do this.

When discussing modern democracy, one must at some point turn to Enlightenment thinking. Immanuel Kant penned a short but fundamental piece called Answering the Question: What Is Enlightenment? in which he defined the Enlightenment as the "emergence" of a person's ability to reason on their own. But what is most interesting is his distinction between private and public uses of reason:

"This enlightenment requires nothing but freedom – and the most innocent of all that may be called "freedom": freedom to make public use of one's reason in all matters. Now I hear the cry from all sides: "Do no argue!" The officer says: "Do not argue – drill!" The tax collector: "Do not argue – pay!" The pastor: "Do not argue – believe!" Only one ruler in the world says: "Argue as much as you please, but obey!" We find restrictions on freedom everywhere. But which restriction is harmful to enlightenment? Which restriction is innocent, and which advances enlightenment? I reply: the public use of one's reason must be free at all times, and this alone can bring enlightenment to mankind.

In other words, in an Enlightened world, you voice your opinions in public, while in "private," you should "obey." However, in today's culture, the public and private spheres are flipped. Politics is too quarrelsome, too divisive, a private matter not to be discussed in open forums; you obey in public. What happened at work today, what you ate for breakfast this morning, and who you are dating, however, are free to go up on Facebook. Passing off political views as mere personal opinions that should be shoved under the rug is detrimental for democracy, the antithesis of it.

If the average person is given the impression that their political views are insignificant, "private," and personal, they do not voice them, and if opinions are not voiced, how can officials hear them? An article by Meira Levinson, a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, describes the vicious cycle. "There is widespread recognition that political power is distributed in vastly unequal ways among U.S. citizens," so people are disheartened. "Why should we care?" Levinson asks for these people. See, they don't want to hear us after all. See, all of the average people are being ignored. Then, this status quo is used as a reason to not attempt to close the civic engagement gap. Voices continue to not be heard. The inequality is reinforced. "Political participation, expression of democratic values, stable political attitudes, and adoption of 'enlightened self interest'" all suffer because of this idea that everyone's political voices are not of equal importance.

It is only natural, then, if your voice does not matter, to believe your vote does not matter. An article from The Independent Review screams in its title: "Now More Than Ever, Your Vote Doesn't Matter," reinforcing every American's worst fear. If I had a dollar for every time someone told me, "I'm just one vote, my vote doesn't matter," I would not have to worry about ever holding a job. The article asserts that a vote, as most people think of it, only "matters" when it is the tiebreaker vote, then goes on to explore the statistics of your vote being that one tiebreaker. But here's some simple math: if 100% of the American people thought their vote did not matter, 0% would vote. It is this attitude that is to blame for preventing citizens from engaging with political issues.

Another effect of this outlook, which goes back to feeding into why we do not seem able to solve some of our most basic problems efficiently, is that we do not educate enough about civics in schools. This article in The Atlantic investigates this issue, and says three essential things. The first is that "it's important that we show [students] that that big machine that seems like it has nothing to do with you matters more than you think." As I described in my last post, every single thing you do is somehow affected by politics. Everything is regulated or protected or limited or promoted by the powers that be, so if you have a voice in your experience in this country... why not use it? The second is admitting our schools (my input: also the culture outside of schools, how we raise children, how we are taught to interact with our peers, etc.) do not have enough civic education. You only know what you don't know until you are exposed to it, and once you are educated in what you can do and what more you can find out, people can go on their own. All you need is a little push. And the third is that "you have to know about how the government works in order to make change."

Furthermore, not feeling like your voice matters and not seeing things change for the better for you personally make you distrust the government. Pew Research Center has reported a steady trend of more citizens being dissatisfied about the direction of the country since about halfway through 2003 and a catastrophic drop in trust in government, with over 70% feeling confident about the government in the late 50s and early 60s to today's less than 20%. It is no surprise, with this sentiment coming from the American people, that they have been prioritizing "freshness" in candidates, or the "outsiders."

Jonathan Rauch, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and contributing editor at The Atlantic and National Journal, wrote an article in 2015 on "amateur" presidents and other high-level leaders. While past presidents and vice presidents have mostly followed the 14-Year Rule, which says no candidate secures the position with longer than 14 years from his first gubernatorial or Senate win, recent officials have been having less and less experience. Our Senate, gubernatorial, and vice-presidential winning candidates' years of experience have been decreasing since the 60s. With our Presidents, George W. Bush had six years as Governor, Barack Obama had four years as Senator, and Donald Trump had 0 years of any political experience whatsoever. The ramifications of avoiding public discourse on important political issues of all citizens clearly shows in our voting patterns, and if we are to build a government the majority of us can trust again, we have to get involved.

Obviously, there are still many, many obstacles in the way of solving America's greatest problems, even once people start to become more aware and articulate in their opinions. However, if we are able to successfully address changing our culture so people can learn to use their voices and realize if they choose to be silent, then there is no way for them to be heard, we will be able to change the effects mentioned in this post. Disillusionment, sadness, hopelessness are heavy and can discourage you, but they are not reasons to step away for good. If no one confronts a problem, the problem does not just slink away. It expands, it takes root, and it only becomes more difficult to remove. Uncertainty and distrust are actually great reasons to get engaged, to get in there and change things for yourself, and realizing this is what propelled me into the world of politics.

Please Vote

Back in the first week of November, I was talking with a friend of mine when she admitted, with the air of revealing to me some exceedingly dark secret, that a friend of hers was choosing not to vote. "He's not voting? Why?!" I asked incredulously. She answered, "He doesn't like politics."

To say I take issue with this concept would be an understatement.

Firstly, people do not seem to comprehend how powerful voting as a concept is. We live in a democracy; each citizen (who is registered to vote) is entitled to get their* voice heard. You have a say in what your country becomes. If you think, "I'm just one vote, one vote won't change anything," realize that if everyone thought that, no one would vote. That line of reasoning is invalid, so go vote. Voting is the strongest way to say you support or oppose something. Your elected representatives, to keep getting reelected, have to heed the people's opinions. And having representation in government is what we are all taught the American Revolution was for. So why would you choose to throw away your voice?

That leads to my second point: voting is your patriotic duty, your civic responsibility. Human beings (for the most part) live in countries with millions of other people instead of living on their own. Why? Because living in an established state provides enormous benefits. A community, something to be a part of, pride, protection. Access to new technology, health care, larger economy, bigger entertainment, wider variety of culture. All the trappings of civilization, society, and for us, all the benefits of America *cue bald eagle noises*. In all seriousness, living within a larger system gives us many advantages. We in turn must contribute, and we do, most obviously in the form of taxes. But it is also our responsibility to participate in what happens in this country, because it is our home, and we are effected by what goes on, whether we see it or not.

And what is strange to me about people who do not vote and these last two points is: are there really people in this country who have absolutely nothing to say about how things are in America? Everyone has opinions! Everyone has things they like and things they dislike! If any readers know someone who doesn't vote - please conduct a little experiment. Ask them if there is a single thing about the state of this country they do not like. And if there is something, tell them they should vote.

Thirdly, I would like to clear the air about "politics." Growing up, I heard what many of you probably also heard: politics is for politicians, politicians are corrupt, politicians don't care about the general population, politics don't affect normal people, etc. This attitude is incredibly dangerous. Yes, politics is mostly a power struggle between some people you will probably never meet who work in a fancy building, but the rhetoric these people spread, the laws they put in place seep into our culture, our everyday life. Some people somewhere decided laws on driving in your state. You (hopefully) abide by them every single day as you drive around. Some officials wrote up food and health regulations, affecting your dinner experience at your favorite restaurant. Laws affecting the work place condition you to think that a certain kind of work environment is to be acceptable, your norm. Legislation affects you every day. Politics affects you every day.

So, please vote.

*I will continue to use the singular "they" pronoun throughout this blog to refer to all individuals.

Marching Forward

On Saturday, January 21st, 2017, the Women's March became the largest protest in US history. People from all across the country and from all seven continents came together and marched on President Donald Trump's first day in office, not to protest him, as many believe, but to protest essentially all inequalities and injustices in our nation. The Women's March on Washington's official Guiding Vision and Definition of Principles based the march on the idea that women's rights are human rights, and human rights are women's rights. This leads into their incorporation of various other social, economic, racial, and political justice movements such as Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter, acknowledging that women's rights affect people of all genders, races, socioeconomic standings, and other such different groups.

Whether or not people agree with what the Women's March stood for, no one can deny that it was an impressive protest. Many people celebrated the strength and passion demonstrated in the march, and media outlets lauded Americans' effort to stand up for what they believe in. However, this is not the time for these same people to sit down and say, "Look! We made a good show, we got noticed, our work here is done." The Women's March should only be the beginning of the conversation.

Before delving into some of the issues at hand, I would like to first remind readers that feminism is the belief in equality of the sexes. Feminism is not and should not be about hating men. I would also like to remind readers that, despite the fact there should not be any confusion about what feminism means, people do disagree on how it is achieved or applied. And while conflicting opinions within a movement do not invalidate it, and while opposing viewpoints are only to be expected in such a large movement, these points of conflict should not be ignored. While the Women's March is a great start for revitalizing progressivism, it is crucial to discuss where people have differing ideas in order to create a more comprehensive, clear, and far-reaching message.

The first issue: intersectionality. A pressing shift in feminism that has been gaining more traction, intersectional feminism is the inclusion of other interconnected categories besides sex and gender in the fight for equality, recognizing that, as one article put it, "systems of oppression all intersect; to consider the issue as a whole, we have to consider all the moving parts that belong to it." Fighting for only one type of equality is a) hypocritical, since in only fighting one system of oppression and disregarding others, one is essentially saying that one group is still superior to others and b) not the way towards a sustainable solution for equality in general. The concept of "white feminism," which is support of gender equality only within white people, is a prime example. Achieving gender equality only amongst white people is not gender equality at all if women of color still have to suffer from unequal rights, standing, treatment, privilege.

Despite the necessary nature of intersectionality for feminism, many have criticized women of color and other minority groups for causing seemingly unnecessary conflict within the movement and compromising unity. But what is unity if people feel left behind? Numerous articles have cropped up on this very issue following the march, saying that despite the intentions from the creators of the Women's March, many women still do not feel included in the feminist movement. This article highlights instances of this very problem. The point of intersectional feminism is not to have "competing victimhood narratives and individualist identities jostling for most oppressed status." The point is to bring attention to the fact that women of other oppressed groups are often not included in the feminist conversation and then are condemned for pointing out that they are not included. What intersectional feminism then asks for is that women who do experience some privilege from being white or upper class or cisgender or straight or any other status that society deems as "superior" commit to true unity, to protecting women of every other group that they may be identified with. Some examples of those who need to be better included in the movement mentioned in the Mic article and one by Feministing, a feminist online community, are: women of color, sex workers, Muslims, immigrants, queer women, and Native Americans.

The second issue: pro-life versus pro-choice. A critical tenet of feminism is the idea that women should have as much control over their bodies as men do theirs. People apply this idea to general access to health care, prices of pads and tampons, contraception, abortions, and many other areas, so it is no surprise that people customarily think of feminists as being pro-choice. Many feminists feel that being pro-choice is not just an important but a requisite part of being a feminist, and although more women have been coming forward as pro-life feminists, they felt unwelcome at the march.

Intersectionality seems to be much more clear-cut than the debate of pro-life versus pro-choice, especially when considering that there are pro-life women who are not religious, support access to health care and birth control, and even voted for Hillary. In hopes that this will become better discussed in the future, I ask to pro-choice feminists who believe pro-life women do not belong in the feminist movement: what if a pro-life woman agrees with you on every single issue except abortion (including matters such as contraception)? Does she still not get to say she wants gender equality, and would you still not want to see her in another Women's March? Does not excluding someone who wants to ardently support feminism weaken the movement and weaken its aims for inclusion, sisterhood, and equality? To pro-life feminists, I ask: how is eliminating the choice of getting an abortion beneficial for gender equality? What if the person who is pregnant is not an adult, was assaulted, has serious health issues, or cannot afford to be pregnant?

I ask those questions not to say that there is an answer to this predicament or that I expect pro-choice and pro-life people to abandon their differences and align on every opinion. What I do hope for from every single person who reads this, progressive or not, feminist or not, woman or not, is that you can inform yourself. Ask questions. Discuss the issue. Debate your opinions. Listen to what the opposite side of the argument has to say. And in this kind of push and pull between people you initially may staunchly disagree with, hopefully, some middle ground and mutual respect can be found. So, pro-choice and pro-life feminists, what can you agree on?

Obviously, both in concept and by definition, no one wants an unwanted pregnancy. It would certainly be terrifying to find that you are with child when you are not in a stable circumstance and are not ready for or ever wanted children. Secondly, no one wants to want an abortion. It is a difficult, if not the most difficult, decision a woman can make, and if women only got pregnant when they wanted to and were capable of having and raising the child, no one would pursue an abortion. Thirdly, everyone wants abortion rates to be low. Even if abortions are administered safely and legally, having a huge number of abortions is not a happy situation for anyone. Pro-life and pro-choice women therefore can stand behind factors that decrease unwanted pregnancies and increase the likelihood of women feeling secure in their ability to have and raise their children. This can be a number of things, including better sex education, better general health education, better sexual assault prevention, better access to birth control, better access to health care, better support programs for women of low income, all things that feminists traditionally are in favor of.

Finally, maybe most importantly: where was everyone during the election cycle? Before Election Day, perhaps a post or two a day were shared by my personal Facebook friends, posts that were largely flung into silence. Either people assumed Hillary Clinton would win or people did not care. In my own personal experience, the majority of people I came across knew little to nothing about Clinton's or Trump's platforms. All people could talk about was the spectacle of it all: how funny SNL's skits were, how comical the debate was, Clinton's emails, Trump's leaked audio. And when November 8th descended upon us, how many of those same people were shocked? How many of those people actually voted? Decide to protest? Suddenly start paying attention to policies and appointments? This is a lesson for everyone, in all aspects of life: complacency is the worst state to fall into.

Moving forward, all Americans need to be more politically aware and civically engaged. If you have anything to be upset about in politics, you have more than enough opportunity to get involved. Isn't that the whole beauty of democracy? My critical eye aside, I am glad that the American people are coming together to exercise their rights to protest and express. I am in awe of the organizers of the march, of the turnout, of the nonviolence, of the compassion. I am overjoyed that people are having important discussions with friends and family, in the media, on the Internet. However, if the feminist movement is to sustain the momentum from the Women's March, if the progressive movement in general is to find successes in the coming years, they must absolutely address, if not the issues that I have presented, the fact that they are far from having finished their work.