A few days ago, I was walking down my dormitory’s stairs for one reason or another, and happened to eavesdrop on a conversation between two other residents. They were talking about some friend of one of theirs. What I found to be somewhat disconcerting was the utterance of “but he’s a Republican.” The other responded that disagreement with one’s political viewpoints ought not hinder amicable social relations. The fact that ceasing social contact as a result of political viewpoints that are not particularly bigoted in and of themselves I found deeply worrisome. Such an attitude is one brought about by what I call ideological privilege, something that is both very dangerous and very localized.

I am a conservative, and I do not deny that. I did, however, grow up in liberal Arlington, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, D.C. on the other side of the Potomac River. There, I was one of the few conservatives in the schools I attended, being denounced as wrong, bigoted, stupid or downright unintelligent. Similarly, the areas of interest that I have are dominated by liberals, and if one engages in political conversation with them from a vantage point of opposition (especially, God forbid, if you say you are Republican), you can expect to find yourself in a rhetorical equivalent of the Vietnam War: something that is long and drawn out with unmentionable inhumanity to one’s fellow human, an expenditure of resources that could have been more profitably spent elsewhere, fails to meet the goals set out upon its initiation and only ends up with everyone hating you. In environments such as this, I learned to shut up.

In places such as liberal suburbs (whose progressivism is often built upon less than pleasant origins, but I digress) and college campuses, those who do not share a certain set of views are less than kindly looked upon. In this sense, there is a certain enshrinement of certain points of view, and by extension certain characteristics. I believe that calling this "privilege," in accordance with modern sociological terminology, is adequate, as it allows those with certain characteristics certain benefits not accorded to those without said characteristics.

What I heard this one co-resident of mine say on that stairwell was a prime example of what I mean. Ideology, based on disagreements that are assumed and not actually discerned, is used as a basis for social discrimination and thence social exclusion. This co-resident made the assumption that this Republican was of what I believe to be the worst kind: the xenophobic, downright racist, homophobic, often sexist Trumpist that wants to expel all Muslims from this country and build a wall on the border with Mexico. I assure you, the majority of Republicans do not support Trump, but the majority of the vocal (and I emphasize "vocal") thinks that such ideas are lunacy. This is based off of the portrayal of conservatives in the media, which is not unlike racial, gender and sexual orientation-based stereotypes that many movements seek to counteract nowadays (something, do note, I consider commendable).

What the creation and enshrinement of ideological privilege do that is most harmful is the creation of echo chambers. When certain views are given higher acceptance than others, one moves towards a status quo where dissent is quelled by the threat of a long, drawn-out argument, what I previously called a “rhetorical Vietnam.” The end result would be a loss of social standing among said community, and hence a degree of social isolation.

What this does is further entrench the partisan divide that is prominent in the United States and to a lesser degree in other nations of the West. I had also better note that the creation of ideological privilege is not confined to liberals; conservatives are guilty of it. See also Reddit, Tumblr and 4chan, all of which have their own distinct ideological inclinations, dissenting which can lead to ridicule. Reddit in particular is prone to this; all you need is a certainly inclined moderator to stifle dissent and voila, you have yourself an echo chamber to end all echo chambers.

In a time such as this, the partisan divide, not just in formal parties but in most political issues, is so starkly high that there has been the creation of gigantic echo chambers, two per issue, grinding against each other, like giant stone wheels being spun against one another, sending sparks flying every which way. Echo chambers are, essentially, the cause of Washington’s partisan gridlock. If we allow ourselves to cordon ourselves off from those who may disagree, what progress will be made in ending societal, cultural gridlock?