Feeling Down About the Election? Here’s What To Do Now.
The day after President-elect Donald Trump’s second election victory, I felt defeated.
For Black Americans like myself, Vice President Kamala Harris’ candidacy represented the possibility that one of us could again hold our country’s highest office. But her loss revealed the reality that the United States has far more to do to enshrine equal rights for all.
Amidst the initial melancholy of that day, one question rested in my mind: Why did I only pay close attention to issues that I care about during presidential election years?
The widespread idea that change can only come through the presidential election can make college students, and all Americans, feel helpless. But there’s a way to turn that helplessness into hope — with a daily dose of political action.
I don’t blame anyone for only thinking about hot-topic issues during election season. The total political advertising spending in this year’s election was over $10 billion. Candidates and pundits parade policies and rhetoric demanding our vote nonstop each election. This intensity perpetuates an idea that the presidency is America’s sole chance for change.
But it’s not. There are ample opportunities for all of us to engage politically every single day.
Many of my Harvard peers were actively involved on the campaign trail, regularly canvassing and phone banking voters in swing states throughout the fall. On campus, groups such as Harvard Votes Challenge registered peers to vote and helped them request absentee ballots. Witnessing fellow Harvard students meaningfully engage in catalyzing political change is genuinely inspiring and has a real impact.
Yet, most college students — especially at Harvard — do not have the time to go on weekly canvassing trips or run voter registration drives. So what more can Harvard students do?
Start local. One way to remain engaged is by keeping up with events in Cambridge or your hometown and voting accordingly. It’s easy to get lost in national political intrigue, but local newspapers often offer the best insight on the outcomes that will impact us most directly. For example, The Crimson reported on the five Massachusetts ballot questions — three of which passed and will directly change the lives of Cambridge residents like us.
This past election, 41 states had ballot measures on issues like abortion, school choice vouchers, ranked choice voting, and minimum wage increases. In my home state of Florida, a ballot measure that would’ve enshrined abortion rights into law was just 2.8 percentage points shy of passing.
Engaging with issues at the local level can be life altering for you and your neighbors.
Part of staying informed is being willing to change your mind. We should make an active effort to communicate with those who disagree with us. With over 80 percent of Harvard faculty identifying as liberal according to a 2022 Crimson survey, it is safe to say most of us reside within a left-leaning echo chamber. Now, more than ever, it is crucial that we have conversations with those who disagree with us, in and outside our political home.
Our care for America must not merely be confined to a single month each election season. We can make our voices heard far more often — ideally, every day for the next four years.
Dalevyon L.J. Knight ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Chemistry concentrator in Adams House.
To the Editor: More Proof of Harvard’s Ideological Conformity
Professor Matthias Risse’s recent op-ed exemplifies the ideological conformity undermining Harvard’s claims to intellectual diversity and vitality. By dismissing the Republican Party as a threat to truth, Risse ironically epitomizes the very problem he laments: the monopolization of “truth” by an elite, self-righteous left.
Risse frames partisan attacks on truth as uniquely right-wing, ignoring how progressivism has institutionalized its own dogmas at places like Harvard. Diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucrats enforce conformity, sexual disorder masquerades as liberation, critical theory claims outsized authority, and biological realities about sex and gender are denied in the name of inclusivity, despite their inherent incongruity with Harvard’s motto. Risse’s vision of a university — of veritas — seems to leave dissenters silenced, ostracized, or accused of ethical failings.
Risse singles out Kellyanne E. Conway, a recent guest at a forum at the Institute of Politics, as proof of the right’s attack on truth. Are we really to judge the merits of an entire political movement by the gaffes of a few appointees? That would be as absurd as judging Harvard on Professor Risse’s musings. Conway’s politics is one built on selective perception, designed to reinforce allegiance rather than seek understanding. It exemplifies the dangers of ideological tunnel vision, offering arguments that thrive on oversimplification and collapse under the weight of critical scrutiny. In other words, Risse is Conway, if only she’d landed a job in the Ivory Tower instead of the White House. While fringe elements exist within the Republican party, just as they do on the left, does such broad-brush criticism meet the intellectual rigor Harvard expects of its faculty?
Conservatism champions principles — natural law, individual liberty, and objective morality — that form the bedrock of western civilization and offer an antidote to the left’s echo chamber. If Harvard truly seeks intellectual growth, perhaps it might consider some back-to-Earth training for its overwhelmingly left-wing faculty. Rather than vilifying the right, voices like Risse’s should engage with it in good faith (indeed, in better faith than he suggests), recognizing that conservatism is not a threat to truth but a counterbalance to the left.
—Richard Y. Rodgers ’28