ction season, any world-conscious community seems to exhale an air of contention. Long buried hatchets inevitably exhume themselves, and tempers rise as friction mounts between party lines. Ritualistically, we factionalize into familiar divisions and prepare for the onset of the fury to come.

A college setting does little to check this culture. Despite a highly progressive environment, many students come to school with no prior exposure to world views outside their upbringing. In fact, most arrive grossly ignorant of the foundations beneath their beliefs. Being all the more susceptible to the dynamism of politics, idealism turns to zeal and the campus is soon overrun by overnight social activists.

It then becomes necessary for those of good taste to respond to this ill-guided fervor. But how to posture oneself? And how does one engage quixotic masses while retaining one’s sanity?

The philosopher Epicurus theorized that, in the economy of pleasures, there are few greater delights than observing the sufferings from which one is free. In other words, pleasure stems primarily from amused detachment.  A provocative sentiment, but of what value might it be to the undergraduate cosmopolitan? To begin, one must first understand the question in its social context.

Imagine for a moment the garden-variety college progressive. Each sip of his fair-trade coffee contains more virtue than most missionaries see in a lifetime.

The mileage on his planet-saving car is outnumbered only by the bumper stickers plastering its tail. He is the distilled embodiment of all things modern.

Now imagine his counterpart, the college Republican. Because of the advance of liberalism, this man hails from a dying breed. Marked by an overambitious wardrobe and a look of emotional constipation, the Republican parades to the world what is essentially the strangulation of his inner child.

While one might understand these stereotypes, there still remains a question as to how to they help to maintain anyone’s sanity. Neither the progressive nor the conservative conspicuously seem to suffer for their beliefs, so Epicurus’s relevance needs defense.

In the case of the progressive, there’s actually an argument to be made that liberalism adds to one’s pleasure rather than reducing it. After all, what’s more enjoyable than an afternoon of chai lattes and cursing the evils of Fox News? History has yet to show us a platform built on more sanctimony and self-congratulation than that of the modern liberal. Admittedly, it must feel good to be a Democrat.

While the Republican might not enjoy the same moral backrub, there is a certain solace in carrying on the intellectual tradition of conservatism. To those who disagree, try dropping an Ayn Rand reference in a political science class full of modern thinkers and watch the outrage ensue.

As for Epicurus, however, for the philosopher’s wisdom to pertain, two conditions must hold. There must be observable suffering and the observer must be free from it. The latter presents little difficulty, as abstaining from the bickering of college politics should be instinctual to those of any refinement. The former, however, entails something of a challenge. While political discourse is certainly observable, it is not easily construed as suffering. Accordingly, the argument is in need of some adjustment.

Counter to much popular thought, politics is not inherently evil. One cannot fairly fault another solely for taking a political stance. The task, then, is not to blind fire indictments at anyone with an opinion; it is to recognize the idiot with an opinion because it is the idiot that suffers. Ignorance may well be bliss, but election season marks the definite exception to this rule.

No other enterprise extracts as much strain, angst, and futility out of the blind idealist as does politics. He is left to slave under an ideal of which he has neither understanding nor authorship, denuded by a culture of exhibitionism and hysteria.

To escape this danger, one must learn not only to avoid idiocy, but also to laugh in its face. With that aim in mind, consider some examples of stock idiots as a starting ground:

The pacifist with the “Obama for Peace” cover picture unconcerned with the President’s continuation of the drone warfare practices that have killed over 700 civilians since 2004,

The small government ideologue bent on inserting restrictive legislation into the bedroom, a woman’s uterus, and stem cell laboratories, the would-be political analyst convinced his Facebook status pronouncing the winner of a debate affects its outcome,

And whoever can’t distinguish “one nation under god” from “one nation under my god”

Once political quarreling is understood with the appropriate comic removal, the campus dialectic gains a new tone. Suddenly, the insufferable becomes the laughable, and the sea of insanity a reservoir of enjoyment. Reason finds reclamation through the grace of Epicurus and is stationed once more in its rightful place by the wisdom of the Greeks.

Charles Woodlief is an Oxford student in the Class of 2016. 

+ posts

The Emory Wheel was founded in 1919 and is currently the only independent, student-run newspaper of Emory University. The Wheel publishes weekly on Wednesdays during the academic year, except during University holidays and scheduled publication intermissions.

The Wheel is financially and editorially independent from the University. All of its content is generated by the Wheel’s more than 100 student staff members and contributing writers, and its printing costs are covered by profits from self-generated advertising sales.