“Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels — men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, we may never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.”

— Dwight D.Eisenhower

Dissent shouldn’t be about venting. It’s tempting to just go out into a public space and insult the opposition’s speaking skills, but that isn’t real dissent, that is just insulting.

Republicans had a problem with Bill Clinton; no matter what policy he signed and passed — and many times authored by a Republican Congress — many Republicans simply had a knee-jerk reaction to just say no to whatever Clinton wanted, because of their pure hatred for the man.

Clinton was a deficit hawk, and if you read any of the books detailing his administration, you’d know the core of his economic plan was deficit reduction.

This should have been right up fiscal conservatives’ alley, but because both sides simply couldn’t work with the other, we had government shutdowns instead of compromise.

Now Democrats have a problem with President Bush. The political hate is back from the Clinton years; however, it is much worse now.

Instead of Iraq war dissent and a national discussion, we got “Bush is Hitler.”

This wasn’t principled dissent, it was merely that same knee-jerk reaction that ruins whatever chance anyone had for finding a better way.

The bottom line is that dissent is not about venting, calling someone names, or adding to the bitter cacophony that is now American politics.

Rather, dissent should be about discussion, deliberation, and reasoning over the passion of the moment.

Dissent should be that rare person or act that makes us really think about what we are doing as a people.

That brings up another point I have about dissent. I am a Republican, the party of Lincoln, but that doesn’t mean that Tom DeLay, George W. Bush, Karl Rove and I think in a group or share a brain.

Within our own party there is much dissent, and I am proud to belong to a group that is big enough for that.

We might criticize the deficit, and it isn’t that our voices are falling on deaf ears, but the political process doesn’t end at the party level.

No, the political process goes through the party and shapes it.

Did anyone notice that President Bush (especially in the State of the Union address) is finally making deficit reduction a big part of his agenda?

I can remember that his first year was the tax cuts, the second year was Sept. 11 and the response to that, then it was Iraq, and now the political process within our own party has made deficit reduction a priority.

This is just one example of how people don’t have to agree—how they can discuss, deliberate, reason and get the result they want.

Principled dissent is all about that — it is about making a change for the better. Republicans do that, from dissent within their own big tent that is our party.

The bottom line is the other side really does nothing but their version of dissent — they call Bush a Nazi, or they attack a flub with their own words.

I was an All-State speaker and I mess up like Bush all the time.

They insult the intelligence of the man who has consistently beaten them since the mid-1990s (including Texas).

What the other side is missing is that principled dissent, the national discussion.

What the other side has is merely a knee-jerk reaction that says no to whatever Bush wants.

This isn’t the dissent Eisenhower talks about. It is bitterness and it should be recognized as such.

Louis Kishkunas is a sophomore in political science from Glenwood. He is vice-president of Campus Republicans.