Last week, I had the opportunity to discuss my perspective as a student entering the 2024 election with MPR. I had participated in a similar discussion in the spring, but that earlier session only included conservative students at the University of Minnesota. This time, however, we had a diverse group of students representing both sides of the political spectrum. Several significant events had transpired since my first interview, including:
- Two assassination attempts that occurred over the summer
- President Biden’s decision to drop out after a dismal debate performance
- Kamala Harris emerging as the new candidate for the DNC
- The selection of Tim Walz as the vice presidential candidate
These were major developments that shaped our discussion,
My views toward the election have shifted considerably, now leaning more in support of the Republican candidate, Donald J. Trump. It was particularly intriguing to hear the reasoning behind the other students’ support for Kamala Harris. One of the key points we discussed was Biden’s withdrawal from the race. Interestingly, we both agreed that he was not in the right condition to serve as president. I felt this decision was overdue, believing it would have been better if he had stepped down before the primaries, rather than throwing in a random candidate at the last minute. In contrast, the other student argued that Biden’s departure was warranted only after the debate, reflecting a moment when it became painfully clear that he was no longer a viable candidate.
Another significant topic was our views on the vice presidential candidates. I expressed my admiration for J.D. Vance, noting how articulate he was and how effectively he communicated Trump’s policies to more moderate voters. I criticized the selection of Tim Walz as a major misstep for the Democrats, pointing out that there were better options for battleground states. The opposing student contended that Walz’s folksy appeal could reach demographics that Kamala struggles to connect with, which could be beneficial in a general election. Nevertheless, we both agreed that Vance had performed exceptionally well in the debate.
The final major topic we tackled was whether the political violence seen this year sets a concerning precedent. We were united in our belief that such violence has no place in our country and that the peaceful transition of power is one of the hallmarks of American democracy. I posited that this cycle of violence might diminish once the aggressive rhetoric against political opponents subsides. The other student, however, argued that such actions could encourage further violence against political adversaries.
Reflecting on this conversation, I found it valuable to engage with different viewpoints in today’s polarized political climate. It was surprising to discover common ground on several issues, illustrating that even amid deep divisions, dialogue can reveal shared values and concerns. Engaging with opposing perspectives not only broadens our understanding but also underscores the importance of civil discourse in navigating the complexities of modern politics.
