Monsters

Written By: Maria Victoria Almarza

Opinion Column

(Maria Victoria Almarza/StoryBytes)

Feb. 5, 2026

MIAMI —“Should prisoners have the right to vote?” My government professor asked, sitting in the middle of our semicircle, eager to hear our opinions. Maybe three hands rose up to answer, so he pressed further. “Who agrees that they should?” A few, shy hands rose up. “Who agrees they should not?” Less hands followed. Government class often felt like a test of the irresistible force paradox: what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? In our case, the irresistible force kept going until it made a dent. He picked on one of the three Gaby’s, an intelligent and sharp student who always excelled in class. She replied that the individuals in prison had broken the social contract by committing a crime, therefore relinquishing their right to vote. This began the debate my professor had been attempting to evoke. I rebuked, saying one did not need to be a moral or good citizen to have civil rights. Furthermore, another classmate added, the punishment for their crime was the prison sentence. The class went on back and forth, but never settled. After this day, I began to notice how themes of morality infect our views on civil rights and liberties. This made me wonder: when our political party is seen as a sign of morality, do we begin to view others as undeserving of Constitutional rights? 

Although the parties we align with reflect our morals, opposing policies can often stem from the same moral value. An example for this would be abortion. The Republican party is aligned with the pro-life movement. They believe that human life starts at conception; therefore, abortion is murder. The Democratic party, on the other hand, is aligned with the pro-choice movement. According to The Pluralism Project at Harvard University, democrats stand “for the ultimate autonomy of the woman in making bodily and reproductive decisions.” Abortion is a choice guided by each woman’s own conscience. Although opposing, at the core of both arguments is the value of life; one of the nation’s founding principles. Nonetheless, does this matter when we cannot look past the surface? When the at-face value of our disagreement becomes too big a barrier? I would argue that it matters now more than ever. 

(Hasan Almasi/Unsplash)

When I began writing this essay, the world looked different. I had just finished Ezra Klein’s Why We’re Polarized and felt hope that bipartisanship could be achieved through conversation. This essay was meant to inspire it in my community. Sadly, I do not believe that words are enough anymore. The polarization present in our country today goes deeper than superficial disagreement; we see each other as threats to the nation, to our lives, and to our democracy. Moreover, we feel a moral and civic duty to see the people we consider threats as fully-fledged monsters. This mutual dehumanization has deadly consequences. 

Unfounded or not, our fear has consumed us to the point where we no longer tolerate each others’ rights or existence. I’m not certain on how to fix it, but I feel it must begin by undoing the narratives that we have internalized. We should trace back our steps back to the start, where our similarities outweighed our differences, and then navigate our way forward together, with kindness and empathy at the center. I do not know if this will happen. In fact, my pessimistic nature inclines me to dismiss the possibility of it all together. However, there is a sliver of hope that appears when I talk to my professors, drive through Miami, read some Jill Lepore, and see others fighting for the world I dream of. 

(Marek Studzinski/Unsplash)