Great Conversations

By Alyssa Tompkins

Let's talk about Helena Education Foundation's "Great Conversations". For any of you who don't know what this is (which I'm assuming is many of you), Great Conversations is an event that fills the Great Northern Hotel's Ballroom with tables and people. Each table has its own conversation topic which ranged anywhere from science, to gender, to politics. I, as you could of guessed, was seated at a table about politics titled "Midterms Madness."

Allow me to begin by explaining both the atmosphere of the table and the ballroom itself. The ballroom seemed to buzz throughout the night, not only with conversation but also with its own energy. There were so many people brought together by different things that the room itself seemed to acknowledge the happiness that was flooding the room. I'm not sure if anyone else had the realizations that I had as I sat there. The realization that there were a multitude of conversations going on all around me simultaneously and they were all so jubilant. Perhaps it was just me, but that hit me very clearly.

The conversation at my table was calm, but opinionated. Everyone had something to say about our current and past political climate. But, as suggested by our table leader, Harper Lawson, we focused on the most recent elections first.

One of my table members, Joe Furlong, asked Mr. Lawson why he thought that Kathleen Williams lost. Harper believed the loss was due specifically to the lack of localization of issues in her campaign. While I do not agree with the majority of things her opponent, Greg Gianforte, believes, I do know he ran a solid campaign. Gianforte ran some pretty harsh ads (quick analysis for you to determine for yourself if harsh or not) against Williams in which he focused on hyper localized issues. Speaking specifically on public lands and immigration in for Montanan's worked very well in his favor. Even though he was known for not being a Montanan, he presented himself as one in a deeper way than Williams did.

This fact that Lawson brought up led us directly into the next conversation: the stigma of not being a Montanan. Matt Rosendale, sometimes referred to as "Maryland Matt," lost his race, and Lawson argued that was because of the thought that he was foreign to Montana. A multitude of focus groups by Lawson demonstrated that Rosendale was not in favor due to his status as Maryland Matt. For some reason or another, Montanans are very protective of their state and its culture. They do not take kindly to a stranger coming in to dictate how they will live their lives. While I'm not a fan of Rosendale, either, I do believe this stigma is invalid. Mr. Lawson, as well as around half of our table, agreed that if someone moved to our state for a higher quality of life, then they are not out to ruin our lives. Lawson and I both are considered newcomers to Montana; Lawson is a politician and I am a teen with growing interest in politics. Neither of us are out to do harm to any other Montanan (homegrown or not), but we are new and thus have some hardships to face in order to have our voice heard. I have heard from a multitude of people that my voice in government is invalid due to the fact that I am new to the United States. Mr. Lawson has also heard this, and his job is literally through the government. We must remove the stigma that newcomers are out to hurt us with everything they do.

After discussing the previous topics very in depth for over an hour, we as a table moved on to the next topic: experience v. new faces. For a quick preview, I have not yet decided my stance on this question, but I do believe that they are both important to have in a wide variety. Both sides make good points. Experience is a big deal to people; citizens want to know that they are going to be in good hands. But, people also do want a fresh face in positions of power. No one wants a politician who stands for only one thing their entire life, never changing with the times (not to call out Republicans, but uhhhhh republicans only look out for tradition), they want someone who can keep up with everything that is happening in a fresh way. Now, there is something to be said about a politician who keeps an eye on tradition as well as our current age and future. That said, I am unsure how to approach this battle that went down at Great Conversations table 23. I believe experience is a huge deal that everyone should pay attention to, but we must also be aware of the current climate and be able to have a politician who can adapt to it as well.

While I did have to leave the table early (I left at 8:15, and it continued till 10), I still gained so much valuable information from people I’m not sure I would have ever before spoken to. I made connections with like-minded individuals and with people who disagree with me. I enjoyed Great Conversations even though there were moments that flustered me. If anyone gets the chance to attend Great Conversations I suggest not passing up the option; it was a very educational blast.