Activism in Action: PolitiChicks Reporter Attends Left-LeaningTexas Tribune Festival Mostly Pro-Abortion, Anti-Gun

The past year has definitely had its number of surprises for me, from being elected a national delegate to being a contributor here at PolitiChicks. One surprise that never crossed my mind was that I would coverĀ an event as “media”, which was the case at the 6th Annual Texas Tribune Festival in the “San Francisco of Texas” (akaĀ Austin).
It was strangeĀ to be on the mediaĀ side of an event, gainingĀ much moreĀ access than a general attendee would receive, includingĀ the ability to set up interviews and hang out inĀ the press room. Ā This was also my first time attending a political event that was not “conservative” and much more left-leaning, especially among the attendees (as well as the location on The University of Texas). The festival is set up withĀ sessions that run at the same time, so I had to schedule my day according to what I found interesting. Hereās my brief overview of those sessions.

The first session, āThe Future of Conservatismā, could have been called āWhat is the future of Conservatism after Trump?ā Ā The entireĀ session centered on Trump and how he is not a conservative and what will become of the conservative movement after the election. According to panelists, the future seemed uncertain because of Trump but they did seemĀ somewhat optimistic that the principles of conservatism hasĀ survived worse and will not be dissolved because of one man.
The next session was āThe Senate Agendaā where they discussed upcoming issues for the 85th Legislature in the Texas senate. The panel was evenly split between Republicans and Democrats and it wasnāt surprising to hear that theyĀ were on opposite sides on the issues.

On theĀ issue of budget, Republicans talked about reducing taxes while Democrats talked aboutĀ āinvestmentā, which is basically a term for raising taxes. RegardingĀ Medicaid expansion, Republicans were against it and Democrats wereĀ for it. Education wasnāt as muchĀ of a disagreement but Republicans were more for parental control than the Democrats were.
As people were filing in the room before the session started I talked toĀ someone who said he was a lobbyist and said he was attending all the sessions based on the Texas legislature for work. As theĀ session went on, we found ourselvesĀ disagreeing on almost everythingĀ being discussed and as soon as it was over he abruptly left his seat. Ā We crossedĀ paths later butĀ never spoke to each other again. He obviously wasn’tĀ interested in discussing theĀ issues with me but little did I know that I wouldĀ be in the middle of a spirited discussion later that day.

The next session, āThe Politics of Prevention: The Abortion Battle, Contādā, isĀ for meĀ one of the most important issues ofĀ our day. The panel was split evenly for and against abortion, and the opinions of both sides were completely opposite. One thing that struck meĀ was whenever one of the pro-life panelists would mention anything about babies, the overwhelmingly pro-abortion room would makeĀ condescending “awww”Ā soundsĀ that quite frankly disgusted meĀ and came across as totally heartless. It was truly sad to hear the callousness in their tone for the protection of life.
The anticipation for the next session was already highĀ and people were lined up outside waiting to be seated for āOne on One with Senator Ted Cruzā. Ā As expected, the majority of the conversation centered aroundĀ Donald Trump because the day before,Ā Senator Cruz announced that he will vote for Donald Trump in November. Ā His announcement came as a shock to many, given the animosity between the two during the Republican

primary. Sen. Cruz said his decisionĀ was based on the practical binary choices between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as well as hisĀ confidence thatĀ Trump would appoint a conservative Supreme Court justice, with Sen. Mike Lee as a potential nominee. Sen. Cruz made it clear that he and Trump have their differences and that he is not out to defend Trumpās positions on the issues but to make the case that regardless of Trump’s weaknesses, Hillary would be worse.
AtĀ the last session of the day, I never thought I would be in aĀ room arguing about individual rights, but thatās what happened. The session was about Campus Carry and, being thatĀ we were on a college campus,Ā itĀ was a hotly contested topic.
TheĀ panel was somewhat uneven at best, with panelist Antonia Okafor (Southwest Regional Director of Students for Concealed Carry) actively defending the right to bear arms withĀ other panelists who were outwardly against it, or trying to playĀ in the middle. Throughout the session the vast majority clapped for all the gun control rhetoric while a very few clapped in support of Ms. Okaforās arguments.
Little did I know that the real fireworks would occur afterwards.
As soon as the session concluded, a number of people rushed up to the stage to voice their disagreement with Ms. Okafor and she patiently listened and defended her arguments. She heardĀ arguments from a number of people wondering why people should have the right to bear arms, mostly arguing with some sort of emotional hypothetical.

After some time, a group of around 10 or more peopleĀ followed Ms. Okafor outside of the auditorium continuing the discussion–and thatās where I got involved. Most of the discussion centeredĀ between Ms. Okafor and woman whoĀ said she was a professor, talking about race and second amendment. It was going well until more people started to jump in, turning it into more of an ambush than a civil discussion, so I finally put my two cents in the conversation. The logic of this spirited debate back and forth was based onĀ āwhat ifsā and that aĀ general fear of guns shouldn’t beĀ grounds for law abiding citizens to loseĀ the right to bear arms. Needless to say, we didnāt reach any resolution; we just got tired and moved on.

Later that night I joined a few friends at event called āPolitics and Pintsā where the attendees kickedĀ back, discussed the day, and played trivia gamesĀ (my team won, which was somewhat rewarding given we were possibly the only conservative group in the place).
The next day only had two sessions which consisted of a panel about the 2016 elections and an interview with Evan McMullin, who is an Independent candidate for President. Both sessions couldĀ be summarizedĀ in one paragraph because they both focused heavily on Donald Trump.
AĀ panel called ā2016 WTFā was supposed to be an hour session aboutĀ the presidential election, which should haveĀ included talk about both Hillary Clinton andĀ Donald Trump. However Clinton was discussed maybe 10 minutes andĀ the rest of the time turned into the a panel of media personalities airing their frustrated confusion about Trump. The same happened in āOne on One with Evan McMullinā, although in fairness McMullin was only responding to the questions by Texas Tribune CEO Evan Smith, mostly centered on Trump.
Overall, this was a powerful event for me because itĀ was my first time attending an event as “Press”, and it was a interesting to experience being on the other side of aĀ political event that was generallyĀ not favorable to conservatives. Ā The highlight for me was standing in thatĀ hall debating the Second Amendment calmly and rationally to people who opposed me.
Hearing such extremeĀ liberal perspectives directly from liberals never once left me questioning my faith or my principles and in fact, I left withĀ even more of both. Much thanks to the Texas Tribune for having me and especially to PolitiChicks for giving this opportunity!