Dividing a Country
We live in a highly partisan era; we do not believe in compromise. In debates, we either win or we lose. We fight to make our points heard and belittle and discredit the ideas offered by the opposing parties. When politicians make any form of change regarding their personal stances on any issue, it makes them look like they made false promises to their constituents. By signing a deal with “the enemy” makes them look like they conceded on the goals that matter to the public. We, as a society, do not believe that compromising is a sign of strength, we view it as a sign of weakness.
Our country was not always in a state of division. In every bill, in every court ruling, in every belief, Republicans were not always pitted against Democrats and vice versa. In fact, studies have shown that in the past, a moderate party did, in fact, exist. Democrats and Republicans were able to debate and create new policies. People were able to have a civilized conversation about serious issues without the other side screaming at them; they were allowed to present well-reasoned arguments with supporting evidence without the fear of persecution for their beliefs. Compromise is now an idea that is essentially dead in all but name. In recent polls, it has shown that there is no middle ground, that the two parties are unyielding in their beliefs. However, this begs the question, how did we get to this point; why are we so unwilling to admit that we are wrong?
Labels are a strong society’s kryptonite. Labeling something makes our life easy, it helps us comprehend what would otherwise be unimaginable. However, because we label, we also exclude. According to the Labeling Theory, when a society gives a person a label, regardless of whether it is true, the person will inevitably succumb to the label that society gives to them. This means that if society labels one person as a liberal, said person will be pressured into conforming to the ideas that are stereotypically for a liberal to believe in and practice. This theory alone is not enough to cause the partisan divide within America, there is another theory that causes this divide: the selective-exposure theory. This theory states that people will want to gravitate more towards the group that they identify. Therefore, once a person is labeled a liberal, then they will gravitate towards a more liberal friend group. According to this theory, people attempt to isolate themselves with people they identify with because it makes them comfortable. However, because people do not want to associate with people who they do not identify with, their experiences will also be limited. In recent studies, researchers have found that Republicans will go out of their way to avoid socializing with Democrats and vice versa. They will never understand life on the other side.
With neither side understanding where the other comes from, every political issue has become a battle. We fight for major issues such as military action and the federal budget to factually proven statements such as whether climate change is real or that fossil fuels are bad for the environment. We fight not because we are willing to die for our beliefs, but because our news tells us that in order to survive, we must fight for the beliefs they give us. However, these news stations are notorious for giving “half-truths;” feeding us information that is not a lie but not exactly the entire truth either. Additionally, these news stations are also notorious for praising the politicians that agree with what they want their message to be while also ridiculing politicians that do not conform to their base. With many American citizens only watching one news station, they are inevitably doomed to become rooted in one belief and unwilling to see the potential genius of any other idea.
We need to learn that there is no one right idea, belief, ideology; but there is one wrong one: the intolerance of opposing opinions.
Links:
https://www.thoughtco.com/labeling-theory-3026627
https://www.people-press.org/interactives/political-polarization-1994-2017/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-identity-not-issues-explains-the-partisan-divide/
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/us/politics/fact-check-family-separation-obama.html
I really appreciate this post as it reviews some of the concepts I am currently learning in my honors American politics class. Earlier in the week, my American politics professor discussed how parties have only shown to get stronger over time. At one point in our nation’s history, America used to have a large population of people who identified as independents. In fact, there actually used to be conservative democrats and liberal republicans. Now, American politics has reached the point where it has become unpopular to align oneself with both parties. It is almost like you can not share the beliefs of both sides. Yes, I understand that the independent party does exist but almost every year they have no chance of winning. It almost, in essence, becomes pointless to become a moderate as you will never see your party’s candidate in office. Furthermore, I believe the political system has become this way to the concept of sociotropic voting. This form of voting occurs when constituents vote for a candidate just based off the fact that they are popular, in terms of the way in which their community votes, rather than whether or not that candidate holds their same beliefs. This is very similar to identity politics. We certainly saw this concept applied within the 2008 election between former President Barack Obama and his political opponent John McCain. In this election, we saw a majority of individuals of minority, more specifically black voters, vote for President Obama just because he was black without looking further into any of his policies. In fact, according to an article titled Exit polls: How Obama Won by David Paul Kuhn, ninety-six percent of black voters voted for President Obama. When I first discovered this statistic, I was greatly appalled. However, after thinking it over a bit more it became very clear to me why this occurred. With my entire family and myself being African American, it was almost a no brainer that we would vote someone into office that looked exactly like us.I remember during the election it was almost taboo to encounter black voters who were not in favor of Obama. Obama’s presidency also gave my family and I pride as we would help elect the first African-American into office. My mom, who is not very politically active, even bought posters and signs in support of Obama during his campaign. I believe identity politics almost forces one to think a certain way about a political party or candidate before even looking thoroughly through their policies. This also plays into why black Americans will often vote democrat as it has become the most popular political party amongst people of minority.
Hey, Cole! I really, really enjoyed reading your latest blog post. I think choosing to talk about the current rift between political parties and discussing past relationships among the parties in the past was a really good move. This topic is incredibly relevant in the political climate today, and I think it is an important one to talk about.
As a psych major, the topic of the Labeling Theory is really interesting to me. As you said, in today’s political climate people will often conform to the ideals and stereotypical qualities of what political party/ideological group they label themselves as, whether they label themselves on their own volition or because of the pressure to do so in the politically-heated state of American society. Going further into the labeling theory, it also goes the other way, beyond what one does to conform to that label, but regarding the treatment of labeled individuals by others outside of that label or that identify with an “opposing” label. This way of looking at it reminds me of the self fulfilling prophecy talked about a lot in psychology – “a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true, by the very terms of the prophecy itself, due to positive feedback between belief and behavior.” In the case of, say, liberal vs. conservative, each belief system has certain stereotypes associated with the other which then, through acting on those preconceived ideas towards others of the opposing label, the other side will then, advertently or inadvertently, begin to conform and take on those identities for themselves. The same occurs when one has preconceived ideas about the ideologies a certain group must have and then, upon identifying themselves with the group, begins to take on the qualities associated with that label. Clearly, self fulfilling prophecy and the labelling theory are closely related.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/labeling-theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy
This idea of labeling theory was brought up in my criminology class earlier this year and in some ways I can relate to it. After the 2016 election, my high school became a political war zone. Nearly overnight people seemed to have become political experts. It got so heated that by just walking down the hallway you would see someone and instantly match their name to their political party. Unfortunatley, I feel this political divide had put a hold on some friendships and could have stopped networking growth for many people beyond high school. As the event kept escalating, whenever my friends would make fun of each other by calling one another a member of a specific political party. I never really had one set friend group so I heard both ends of the arguments, but the playful insults would sound something like:
“You’re such a deplorable” or on the other hand “stop being such a lib.”
By creating negative connections with these words, I feel it strayed many people from exploring the other party. They don’t even want to consider working with the other party or exploring its ideals because they don’t want to be actually connected to some of the joking insults they received.
What I feel is, many people become liberal or conservative based on their friend groups. When there is no diversity in political thought, there is no differentiation of ideas and people stray further and further from the opposing party. Once the groups start making fun of their members for being a “deplorable” or being a “big liberal”, people stray further and further from the idea of free thought or even having some level of the other party in their ideas.
I think this is a topic that is important, and isn’t examined enough when it comes to why our democracy is so dysfunctional in its current state. Part of why that is is because of exactly what you said, people are talking to each other; the discourse in the country has become so inflammatory that it isn’t feasible to have a dialogue with the “enemy”. That is a problem I see often, and one of my biggest complaints about politics today, even though I am heavily invested and care deeply about the issues.
Politicians today have become more worried about their re-election, and that isn’t wholly unreasonable considering it is their job and they are doing it for a purpose, but they are putting that goal ahead of their main priority. That priority is something State Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman said last night at the forum in the hub, and I’m paraphrasing, there is a difference between being a politician and a public servant; politicians act in their own best interest and public servants act in the best interests of their constituents.
I vehemently disagree with the Senator on most issues, but I completely agree with what he was saying, people get into politics for the right reasons most of the time, but they often find themselves, especially in D.C., to fall into the norm of just being a politician, not a public servant. This isn’t something that can be fixed by legislation either, which makes it that much more challenging. It has to be done by the people themselves, individuals need to be more accepting of people they disagree with. In my experiences just simply listening to people gives me a better understanding of the issue at hand because I see things through their perspective. It reminds me of my favorite quote, from To Kill a Mockingbird, “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view – until you climb into his skin and walk around in it”.
This country needs more, productive, dialogue. Now that won’t stop the fighting over the issues, but it will allow those debates to be more constructive and actually lead to solutions rather than the status quo being maintained for long periods of time when it is apparent it simply isn’t working.
https://onwardstate.com/2019/04/03/lt-governor-john-fetterman-state-senator-jake-corman-featured-in-cost-of-college-education-forum/
First, I really liked these cartoons. Political cartoons always make the topic more fun because who doesn’t like pictures? Plus, the pictures always make it easier for me to understand the situation.
Second, I really enjoyed this article and the topics you brought up. It feels like partisanship is something that our country needs and everyone knows it, yet no one attempts to strive for it. People will call for partisanship, but only allow for it to be partisanship and acceptance of the opposing party. Personally, I see a lot of people calling for partisanship but not willing to cross party lines themselves. Unfortunately, I think party loyalty is to blame for a lot of this. We can all agree that we want the United States to do well, for gun violence to end, for poverty to be eradicated, and for no one to go hungry. It’s just how we come to this is where the parties seem to disagree. As you mentioned in your article, neither party wants to cross party lines and that is why we see nothing getting done in government. If anything is going to be fixed in the United States, we need people of congress to work together and for America, rather than work for party.
Yes, I totally agree with you. I feel like political parties should work in the best interest of America rather than their own individual party but unfortunately, that will never happen. American politics is a game of money and power, therefore, many politicians will make decisions based on what seems the most financially advantageous to them at the moment. Sadly, this is the current world we live in.