Friends, Columbians, and Countrymen

It’s been a pretty exciting week for any sports fan—hockey season is starting, football season is getting into full force, and baseball season is reaching its peak. As a Philadelphia native, my week has been particularly exciting, as the Phillies reached the second round of the playoffs for the first time since I was 6 years old.

That’s not why my hometown pride is at the highest level it’s been in two decades, though. Last Saturday night, Sarah Palin dropped the ceremonial first puck at the Philadelphia Flyers’ opening game as part of a promotion for finding the “Ultimate Hockey Mom.” And the crowd, in true Philadelphia fashion, booed her. The chorus of boos was loud and clear, and frankly—without propagating my political beliefs too openly—I have never been more proud to be a Philadelphian.

Usually, I’m embarrassed by the notorious “boo birds” of Philadelphia, whose claim to fame is, according to legend, having booed Santa Claus. It’s a reputation that’s earned Philadelphia sports fans a bad name around numerous professional leagues, and it even led me to a brief stint as a Dallas Cowboys fan in fourth grade.
But there was something about this booing that seemed different. It was impassioned, and directed not at something superficial, but rather at some common dislike for a public figure. And despite how out of place it seemed and how much of it was probably caused by excessive imbibing, I couldn’t help but feel somewhat inspired when hearing it.

Across America, there is a renewed sense of political activism. Voter turnout stands to be at record levels, with the young and old alike getting more and more involved in the political process. As November approaches, activists all over the country have only one concern—getting their candidate elected and cheering vehemently against the opposition. This is not an election characterized by indifference—people have strong feelings, and they’re willing to voice them.

But there’s a reality check question that’s been on my mind for some time now. With all this focus on Nov. 4, what’s the day after going to look like? Columbia’s liberal environment is no secret, and there seems to be some common responses to the notion of McCain’s winning. Surveying three people randomly with the question “What would you do if McCain won the election?” I was met with only two answers. The first was “I’d buy a flask and drink it instead of going to class,” and the second—which I heard twice—was “I’d move to Canada.” The logical question becomes, then—is that renewed sense of American political activism going to be reduced by half come Nov. 5?
My columns, as some of you might have noticed, tend to have at least a little relation to Shakespeare. Re-watching the classic Marlon Brando Julius Caesar this past weekend, I was reminded of how powerful a people’s interaction with its leader can be. One element of it struck me, in particular, perhaps due to its current relevance—the desire of a few high-ranking men to take power into their own hands.

Shakespeare’s plays, particularly his histories, are often concerned with how to deal with a ruler who has become tyrannical. The question underlying Julius Caesar is whether taking desperate action is justified when a leader has overstepped his bounds. To be clear from the outset, I am well aware of how different Roman times were, and in no way would I consider unlawful overthrow of the government or the violent stabbing of a political leader to be justified in today’s day and age. But in the abstract, Caesar portrays passion for the political process extending so far as to provoke a form of activism—the kind of activism that arises only when you stand in opposition to those in charge.

Now is not the time for indifference. In the midst of economic turmoil and an unpopular war, now is the time to stand up for what we believe in—whether we’re standing with or against the sitting executive power. Shakespeare challenged his audience with the question of whether or not extreme action was justified, but nowhere in his text is there any implication that apathy would have been commendable. The conspirators perhaps went too far, but the lesson remains the same—it is our responsibility in a democracy to remain politically active, whether or not our candidate makes it into office.

There is nobility in opposing those in power. Whether it’s by marching on Capitol Hill or rallying the vote for 2012, it’s as important a part of the democratic process as is supporting your own candidate. Shakespeare tells us that Romans didn’t allow Caesar’s power to remain unchecked, and neither should we—neither by moving to Canada nor by drinking ourselves into oblivion.

“You are not wood, you are not stones, but men,” declares Antony to the Roman mob. As men, we must continue to fight for what we believe in and refrain from becoming idle creatures—whether or not Election Day goes the way we want it to. At the very least, remember that life will go on as long as we’re able to boo public officials at hockey games.

Dan Blank is a Columbia College senior majoring in political science. That is the Question runs alternate Wednesdays. Opinion@columbiaspectator.com">Opinion@columbiaspectator.com