There is a distinct culture at Macalester, the kind that makes people ambivalently murmur “Oh…” when you tell them that you go here. We frame every other phrase with bunny ears, as we do not wish to own the words coming out of our own mouths, even if we love to listen to the sound of them. There’s probably some kid walking around campus who turned a cashmere sweater his mom sent him into an art project.

Above all, our politics are so far to the left, the main discourse on campus seems to center around reformism vs. radicalism, the Democrats vs. the Nader types. This discourse gets most heated during election time and is accompanied by much finger-pointing and hurling of granola.

Sam Worley-Ekstrom’s article “No more liberal compromises,” that appeared in The Mac Weekly on February 6, has drawn first blood in The Mac Weekly this primary season. Worley-Ekstrom decries how politics have degenerated into a dispassionate game. He contends that liberals have fallen to the seduction of compromise, selling their souls and getting measly Democrats in return.

I can empathize with Mr. Worley-Eckstrom’s grievances, but I would like to present a different side of the coin. Hello children, my name is the angry lefty pragmatist.

The angry lefty pragmatist (ALP) and a Green Party member are upset about many of the same things. The ALP, however, approaches political systems with only one burning desire deep in his or her bosom(s): maximum fulfillment of his or her goals. The ALP understands that a simple pluralistic voting system tends to create two viable candidates who must divvy up the electorate. This peculiar creature also thinks that things like American electoral systems and neo-liberal hegemony are not things that can be fundamentally changed by “establishment” activities like voting. Realizing the limited scope of American democracy, and the relatively large conservative constituency he or she is up against, the ALP balances ideology with strategy, striking terror into the hearts of Republicans.

In all seriousness though, folks, I hold no ill will toward the radicals and the Greens. I don’t simply believe that “anybody but Bush” is enough for America, as Worley-Ekstrom accuses of pragmatists. I am certain that we need to do a lot more, but social justice and leftist politics do not begin and end with voting: there is so much more to political participation. Anyone who says that a Democrat makes little difference from Bush has probably never worked at a homeless shelter or a group home; choices within our electoral system make an enormous difference for millions of “ordinary people,” both here and abroad. I see this reality every week, but it is only seeing. Like almost all other private liberal arts students, I have the luxury of not having to feel this reality.

In the end, that is why I am not willing to compromise. I am not willing to compromise substantive improvements that save lives in exchange for ideology. This is unequivocally not a compromise of my beliefs; it is simply approaching one aspect of political participation strategically. Republicans have understood this for several years now, and that, my friends, is why we are getting our asses handed to us by a bunch of overgrown twelve year-olds in flight suits. My liberal compatriot Worley-Ekstrom was right when he said that politics isn’t a game. It is both an ugly war and a beautiful coming-together, but ultimately it is a matter of life and death. I don’t know about you, but I’m foaming at the mouth and ready to throw down.