What's the Big Idea

I had a recent conversation with a friend of mine about exchanging ideas. He expressed frustration at the thought that in college people weren't really wrestling with ideas. I thought this to be absurd seeing as though you hear some of the most far reaching theories, idealogies and viewpoints on college campuses. But he reminded me that a few people hold may hold bold and daring views but students in group, don't really wreslte with varying ideas. I didn't and don't necessarily agree with his assertion , but I do feel he underscored a valuable point. In much of our converstaion (espescially regarding politics) we don't really wreslte with varying and competing ideas. There may be language and rhetoric that suggest we debate points, but a close examination shows we may just be going in circles.

With the nation in a valley of excitement, between the election and inaguration of President-elect Obama we can look start there to examine the thought of competing ideas. Many in the media praise the President-elect for forming a team of rivals with his administration appointments thus far. However that can be debated. As Michael Gerson wrote in the Washington Post Sen. Clinton, much like Robert Gates and Gen. James Jones all think the best way to restore the United States global image is through co-operation with multinational organizations. They aren't opposed to war by any means, but they all feel that the most effective way to cast the United States in the best light would be through what Gerson called "soft diplomacy."

Let me begin with saying I don't necessarily disagree with that foreign policy approach but there is not much in the way of competing ideas. The goal is the same (which is to be expected): how to get the United States back in the world's good graces. The ideas however are also the same. The premise of a team of rivals is to pit people who would have competing ideas against each other in order to come out with the strongest most viable idea. If the conversation starts with people who have the same idea, than there is nothing to be gained because new streams of thought aren't at play.

Further evidence of this is the 2004 Presidential Election. One thing people didn't like was that both candidates from the major parties were Yale graduates who belonged to the Skull and Bones Secret Society. It becomes quite hard to trust that one idea is different from another idea if they both come the same background and ilk. That was one of the reason (among many) that Senator John Kerry lost his Presidential bid. The 2008 Georgia Senate race was so close that it demanded a run-off...between two collegiate fraternity brothers. The Republican incumbent Saxby Chambliss decisively defeated the Democrat Jim Martin in the run-off. In an election galvanized around change, the choice many in Georgia had were one Sigma Chi brother or another. This is no disrespect to their organization, but I'm sure their ideas and views are not that far off, despite different party affiliations.

More than advocating for a particular position, I encourage people to challenge their own thoughts and ideas by informing themselves of differing points of view. Sometime that can be difficult because what we think is different could simply be the same thing packaged in a new wrapper. Those who feel socialism is a great idea should read Wealth of Nations (if they already have not) and begin to engage those points and ideas. Likewise those who live to extol the virtues of free-market capitalism might want to spend some time with Marx's Communist Manifesto. No matter what your thoughts are, ideas are only strengthened when they are challenged. Challenging ideas... now that's a big idea.