On November 5, the United States will elect its next president, along with a diverse slate of other federal, state and local officials.

The U.S. is not alone in this regard – this year, over 60 countries have held national elections of some kind. As Calvin students prepare to vote or process the results of an election in their home countries, many are engaging in political dialogue of some kind — but in an era of increasing polarization and incivility, this is not always easy. 

Difficulties with dialogue

According to Doug Koopman, professor emeritus of political science and senior fellow at Calvin’s Henry Institute, there is much less trust in governmental structures and institutions than there was even a decade ago. Furthermore, Koopman says that “candidates, campaigns, advisors, and donors have chosen to accept that lack of trust, rather than make an attempt to fix it.” This lack of trust leads to fear, which enables what politics and economics professor Micah Watson calls “affective incivility.” Affective incivility, according to Watson, is the tendency to criticize a person rather than their beliefs or policies. Watson says that there has been incivility in politics for as long as politics has existed, but recently, this incivility has become much more personal. 

According to Alex Shier, the president of Calvin’s Political Dialogue and Action Club (PDAC), “politics has become increasingly taboo to talk about because emotions run so high.” Professor of Philosophy Kevin Corcoran said that “politics has become tribal.” Corcoran went on to say that the current tendency in political dialogue is to immediately dismiss people we disagree with as “imbeciles.” 

John Witte, dean of students, stated this point quite directly: “We tend to identify our own positions and parties as ‘right,’ and others as ‘enemies.’” 

According to both Witte and University Pastor Mary Hulst, this tendency is a mistake. Witte says that “hearing perspectives, discerning truth, identifying lies or misinformation — all while loving our neighbor and working toward renewal — this is a core part of who we are as an institution.” According to Witte, this practice of listening and critical engagement is part of preparation for life as citizens, neighbors, and church members in contemporary society. Hulst says that being politically engaged is a good thing — but she encourages students to do it “with their hands open.”

Grappling with complex issues

Located in a politically diverse city that is regularly visited by presidential candidates, Calvin University is not removed from the political conflicts across the country. The university has a long history of inviting students to engage with the questions behind these conflicts,  routinely bringing in speakers with diverse perspectives on complex issues. Watson says that this kind of engagement with complex issues is “a hallmark of Calvin’s approach.”

This is not a new practice at Calvin, either. Witte said that “most people who have been around here for a while would attest to how Calvin has generally encouraged engagement with political, theological, world, and cultural issues.” Sophomore Matt Vander Wall, a student worker in the Heritage Hall archives, agrees; according to Vander Wall, Calvin has “a tradition of moderation,” which enables the university to foster dialogue among its students. 

Vander Wall told Chimes he’s been “rather impressed” with the student body’s ability to dialogue effectively. Vander Wall believes that “Calvin remains first and foremost an academic institution, not an activist institution,” which allows students to have more effective conversation with one another.  

Watson, who recently taught a course grappling with complex issues at the Handlon campus, said that students at both the Knollcrest and Handlon campuses “do a pretty nice job of interacting with students who disagree.”

In Koopman’s experience, most students want to explore issues effectively and deepen their thought, rather than just entering into echo chambers.

“I think the students are far ahead of the faculty and staff in wanting substantive conversations across differences,” said Koopman.

The path forward

How can we keep up an environment in which people can engage in effective political dialogue? Figures across the university suggest different ways of going about the issue.

Hulst says it comes down to curiosity. According to Hulst, “if you’re not curious, you’re not going to help yourself understand.” Hulst said that she learns more about what she thinks from conversations with people who disagree than she does from those with people with whom she agrees. PDAC president Shier feels similarly, saying that “we need to create better spaces for people to be wrong and grow…if you don’t look back on yourself three years from now and say, ‘wow, that person was stupid!’ then you haven’t made any progress.”

For Koopman, a key aspect of his approach to dialogue comes from his faith. Koopman told Chimes that his faith gives him the knowledge that “my intellect is fallen, my motivation is fallen…even when I think well and I have the right motivation, my ability to carry out what I believe is fallen.” 

Corcoran says that “too many people believe that it is impossible for them to be mistaken.” Instead, Corcoran says that persons engaging in dialogue should “remember that others have lived and studied as much as we have to come to their positions,” and emphasizes that “no one has a God’s-eye view.”

According to Koopman and Corcoran, coming to the realization that one is fallible encourages humility. 

Watson cited 1 Peter 3 as the basis for his approach. According to Watson, the text centers on our nature as people rooted in Christ, and emphasizes gentleness and respect, while also prompting Christians to be prepared to answer for the hope they have in times to come. Watson told Chimes that if Christians are able to conduct themselves this way regarding their faith, then it is easy to conduct themselves similarly for the less-important issue of politics.

Witte said that people in dialogue should “practice, learn, and strive for…the ultimate virtue of love.” Moving into election season, Witte is spearheading a campus dialogue initiative called the “Put on Love” campaign. It’s a set of targets for programming and dialogue centered around Colossians 3, aimed at encouraging Calvin’s campus community to remain civil in a climate of bitter political disagreement. According to Witte, the virtues promoted by Paul in Colossians “may not always be natural to put on” — but those engaged in dialogue should “choose them, attempt to cover ourselves with them, and have them be visible to someone who sees us or experiences us.”