For my final civic issues blog, I was originally going to focus my discussion on Marjorie Taylor Greene. Most of you have probably heard of her, she is a first term Republican Representative from Georgia, a fierce Trump supporter, and possibly one of if not the most conservative lawmaker in Congress currently. She has become notorious for supporting QAnon, a far-right pro-Trump conspiracy theory on the Internet. My research into Marjorie Taylor Greene brought me more into the realm of QAnon and the role that social media plays in political polarization, which is what I have decided will be my topic for today instead. 

Social media can best be described as both a blessing and a curse. It allows people all over the world to connect with one another and do things such as share information and raise money for charity; however social media is also a breeding ground for false information. I myself have even been the victim of sharing something to my story that was not completely true. It is always important to fact check any information you see on social media, but unfortunately not everyone does that, or maybe they believe what they want regardless of the actual information. Either way, QAnon was able to rise to prominence through social media and the Internet. 

Even though many people have heard of QAnon, some do not know what QAnon actually is or stands for. QAnon is a conspiracy theory that claims that the Democrats, people in the entertainment industry, and even the Pope, are pedophiles and cannibals, and that former President Trump was recruited by military officials to bring order back to America and the world (Roose 2021). QAnon then branched out to spread falsities about Covid-19, the Black Lives Matter Movement, and the 2020 election. The QAnon conspiracy theories have played a significant part in the political unrest that has unfolded in the U.S. recently, including anti mask/anti lockdown protests, and the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. 

In addition to spreading false information, social media has become a major platform for politicians on both sides of the aisle. Former President Donald Trump was known for using his Twitter account as a way to communicate candidly about current events; some people liked this approach while others didn’t. Other politicians have begun using their social media platforms more candidly. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez frequently goes live on Instagram to explain government processes and current events to her 8.9 million Instagram followers (Edmondson 2021). She will also put up stories where you can ask her questions and she will answer them. Both Donald Trump and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have used their social media platforms to candidly speak with constituents, but why is one applauded for it while the other was villainized and subsequently banned?

This question goes back to the major issue with social media: false information. Donald Trump was tweeting false things about Covid-19, the 2020 election, the Black Lives Matter Movement, etc. to stir the pot with his followers. His tactics were successful, as we saw with the events on January 6. Twitter banned his account as a result of his tweets inciting the insurrection. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, while she arguably shares some polarizing information, generally sticks to more business-like matters and backs up her claims with facts. I follow her on Instagram and can say that I have never felt like she was spreading falsities to further her own agenda or to push followers further to the left. Of course, this could be up for interpretation, but I would say that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Donald Trump’s communication styles are what differentiates their candid posts to supporters. 

One final issue I would like to discuss on the topic of social media and political polarization comes from the New York Times article by Catie Edmondson linked here. She writes about how differences in goals lead to differences in communication. Right now, the Democrats control both houses of Congress and the Presidency, so Republicans have very little legislative power. This powerlessness has led them to focus less on legislation and more on riling up their constituents in an attempt to bring them out to vote in the midterm election of 2022. Madison Cawthorn, a Republican Representative from NC, said he “built my staff around comms rather than legislation,” on purpose (Edmondson 2021). In an official Zoom meeting Republican Representative Lauren Boebert (R-CO) had her backdrop of rifles on display (Edmondson 2021). She then went viral on social media. Notoriety on social media brings in donations. 

The intersection of all this is several members of Congress and former President Donald Trump spreading false information on social media, which culminated in the insurrection on January 6 that left four people dead. The reckless usage of social media platforms combined with the gullibility of many social media consumers led to that event, which was arguably one of the most politically polarizing moments in our country’s history. To combat the spread of misinformation, platforms such as Twitter and Instagram have begun to put warnings on posts regarding the validity of the content; however this is not always enough. Sometimes banning accounts is the only way to stop the spread of misinformation on a specific platform. How do you feel about certain accounts being banned? Do you think banning is a form of censorship or not because the social media platforms are run by autonomous, private companies? Do you think the events of January 6 would have been avoided if social media was not a thing? Do you think social media is a blessing or a curse in the realm of politics? 

Thank you guys so much for reading my civic issues blog this semester! I hope you enjoyed it. I loved that I got to discuss a topic that I am passionate about and that is so relevant today.

Works Cited: 

Edmondson, Catie. “With Disruption and Trolling, Greene Reflects G.O.P.’s Shift.” The New York Times, 19 Mar. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/03/19/us/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-congress-gop.html. 

Roose, Kevin. “What Is QAnon, the Viral Pro-Trump Conspiracy Theory?” The New York Times, 4 Mar. 2021, www.nytimes.com/article/what-is-qanon.html.

A few weeks ago the Senate found Donald Trump not guilty of the charge of “incitement of insurrection” (Levine & Gambino 2021). This was the second Senate impeachment trial held in Donald Trump’s four years in office. He is the first and only president to ever be impeached twice. Many Americans know of the word impeachment and have a general understanding of what it is, but it is surprising how little people actually know about the process. I will give a brief overview of the process for those who are not that familiar with it.

Articles of Impeachment are filed by a Representative, and then the whole House of Representatives votes on whether to approve the impeachment articles or deny them (“Impeachment”). A simple majority (greater than 50%) is required to approve impeachment articles in order for there to be a Senate trial. Articles of Impeachment are the Congress’s form of filing charges. 

The next step is for there to be a Senate trial. The Senate hears evidence and arguments from a committee of representatives called “managers” and from defense attorneys for the President or government official who is being impeached (“Impeachment”). The managers play the role of prosecutors (“Impeachment”). After the trial is over, the Senators vote to find the defendant either guilty or not guilty. In order for a guilty verdict to be given, there needs to be a supermajority of Senators who vote to convict (two-thirds or 67 Senators). A guilty verdict would bar the convicted from ever running for public office again. 

Donald Trump was impeached twice and acquitted both times. There were differing opinions regarding the validity of the impeachment. Republican Senators attempted to halt the impeachment trial on the grounds that the trial was unconstitutional because Donald Trump had already left office (Fandos 2021). Only five Republican Senators voted with the 50 Democrat Senators to continue with the proceedings. It was clear that getting a conviction was going to be near impossible, but the Democrats continued with the proceedings. At the end of the trial, only seven Republican Senators voted to convict Donald Trump along with all the Democrat Senators, so they fell ten Senators short of a conviction. 

The seven Republican Senators who voted to convict Donald Trump have faced consequences from their constituents for their actions. Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) was censured by the LAGOP the same day as the vote (Alcindor et al. 2021). Two days later the NCGOP censured Senator Richard Burr (R-NC). Three of the other Senators who voted to convict could also be censured (Alcindor et al. 2021). In an interview Richard Burr said, “My party’s leadership has chosen loyalty to one man over the core principles of the Republican Party,” (Alcindor et al. 2021). So far the Republicans who voted to convict have not expressed regret for their actions; they stand by their decision and believe it is necessary to hold Donald Trump accountable to prevent violence in the future. They may face further repercussions when they are up for re-election. 

It is clear that some of the Republicans who voted to acquit did so because of party lines, not because they actually believe Trump deserves it. Mitch McConnell showed this in his statement after the proceedings. He said that Donald Trump was “practically and morally responsible” for the insurrection at the Capitol, but he did not vote to convict because Trump had already left office (Alcindor et al. 2021). He even said that Donald Trump could be charged in criminal courts for his role in the insurrection. McConnell’s actions can be viewed as hypocritical, and some believe it is evident that he voted to acquit to save face with the Republican Party and his constituents. It is possible that other Republican Senators did the same.

If the country were not so politically polarized and politicians could actually act in the best interest of the country without being afraid of backlash from their party and constituents, maybe Donald Trump would have been convicted. It is an interesting question of how much political polarization played a part in the filing of the Articles of Impeachment from the Democrats, and in the vote to acquit from the Republicans. Another question that is heavy on many Americans’ minds and will be in the upcoming years is how to solve the issue of political polarization. 

The article attached here from the Greater Good Science Center describes how political polarization is a social psychology issue. It describes how Americans tend to agree on moral issues, such as gun control (more than 75% of Americans think there should be stricter gun laws), but our country is still so polarized. This is because when bills have a party attached people automatically assume it is either good or bad before they even consider the policies being presented. If we only looked at the issues themselves without parties, there would be much more agreement on issues. It is hard to get things done because people are so stuck in these party lines. It is seen as good versus bad, not Republican versus Democrat. It should not even have to be Republican versus Democrat, they should work together to compromise. Is this what George Washington was talking about when he warned of the perils of a two-party system?

The article then talks about strategies from a social psychology standpoint to mitigate the political polarization. First is intergroup contact, or socializing, with members of the opposite party. This can be difficult to accomplish, though, because certain social situations can actually lead to more hate towards people who disagree with you. Second is perspective taking, which is when you learn about what it is like to be in another person’s shoes and have to deal with a variety of issues. The article discusses a study that was done with people viewing issues from a transgender person’s perspective, and how after this experience the participants were more sympathetic to transgender individuals. The third is superordinate or common goals. When people are working for a common goal it gives them a sense of camaraderie and compassion. This can be difficult to achieve in a political setting. Fourth is proportional voting, not majority wins. This would mean that instead of the Senate being 2 Senators for each state, it would be like the House of Representatives and have seats proportional to the populations and voters. One major concern with this approach for the United States is that big states would dominate over the red states and people in majority rural states with low populations won’t have a voice. The argument for proportional representation is that the small states have too much power and it is not fair that they have just as many seats as states with much larger populations. The fifth and final strategy to reduce political polarization is voting for policies, not parties. This one is pretty self-explanatory. 

I definitely think that something needs to be done about the political polarization in the United States. The events of January 6, the impeachment trial, and even the last 4+ years should be a wake up call for all Americans, regardless of what side of the political spectrum you are on. Something needs to be done because we cannot keep just getting at each other’s throats, it is a tug of war that will go on forever unless we remedy the situation. What do you guys think about the strategies from the article I included? Also, if you feel up to it, I would like to know your thoughts on our two-party system and if you think political polarization can be remedied within a two-party system.

Works Cited:

Alcindor, Yamiche, et al. “Republican Senators Who Voted to Convict Trump Face Political Peril at Home.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 22 Feb. 2021, www.pbs.org/newshour/show/republican-senators-who-voted-to-convict-trump-face-political-peril-at-home.

Fandos, Nicholas. “Republicans Rally Against Impeachment Trial, Signaling Likely Acquittal for Trump.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 27 Jan. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/us/politics/republicans-impeachment-trump.html.

“Impeachment.” U.S. Senate: Impeachment, 2 Feb. 2021, www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm.

Levine, Sam, and Gambino, Lauren. “Donald Trump Acquitted in Second Impeachment Trial.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 14 Feb. 2021, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/13/donald-trump-acquitted-impeachment-trial.

The 2020 election was particularly tumultuous and made the title “The United States of America” seem quite ironic. What we showed in the past few months, actually, the past four years and change, was not united. My Grandma was born in 1944, so she has lived through lots of major events in our nation’s history. She has been a voter since the first presidential election she was eligible to vote, which was 1964. I recently asked her if what was happening in our country is normal and happens every few election cycles; she replied with a light giggle and said “no, this is definitely not normal.” Being that the 2016 election was the first time I really paid attention to politics, and the 2020 election was the first one I could vote in, I thought that the extreme political polarization that our country has been experiencing is normal, but apparently it is not.

Being that the 2020 election is over and the winner, Joe Biden, is in office, there have been calls for reunification from both sides of the political spectrum. A central theme of Biden’s platform throughout his presidential campaign was being a President for all Americans, not just the ones who voted for him. Biden’s inaugural address discusses the political polarization in our country several times. “We must end this uncivil war that pits red against blue, rural versus urban, conservative versus liberal. We can do this, if we open our souls instead of hardening our hearts. If we show a little tolerance and humility. And if we are willing to stand in the other person’s shoes,” (Wise, 0:38-1:05). Some prominent Republicans even expressed appreciation for Biden’s speech calling for unity, including Senators Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, and Susan Collins (Sprunt). 

During Super Bowl LV on this past Sunday (2/7), Jeep played a commercial that echoes the calls for unity coming from other prominent figures. The video clip can be found here. In summary, the commercial opens by talking about a chapel in Kansas that is the middle point of the continental 48 states, is open 24/7, and welcomes anyone who wants to come in (IGN). The commercial has Bruce Springsteen as the narrator, and he continues by saying how “the middle” has been hard to reach recently because there is a divide between “red and blue, servant and citizen,” (IGN). At the end of the commercial, the screen has an outline of the continental 48 states with a star at the point in the middle and the words “To the ReUnited States of America”. My initial thought after watching this advertisement is that maybe Jeep has been known to donate to Republicans and possibly even some of its top executives are open Trump supporters, so they are using this commercial and call for unity as a way to redeem their brand from being boycotted by staunch critics of Donald Trump. However, after going on my app called “Goods Unite Us”, which provides information on where top executives of companies donate their money, I was surprised to see that Jeep’s donations to political entities goes to 86% Democratic candidates and organizations while only 14% goes to Republicans.  

I did not see this ad when it was played on live tv, I looked it up after I saw the following Instagram post on my feed:

This post got me thinking about the current political climate in the United States. I remember talking to my mom once and asking her why she never went to high school reunions. Her answer was, “because you can’t reunite with people you were never united with in the first place.” The only thing holding us all together is that we live in the United States of America. Some of us chose to come here, most of us did not. Just because we all live in the U.S. does not mean we have to feel connected to everyone here. This post is similar to how my mom feels about high school because I was personally never united with racists, bigots, and insurrectionists therefore I am not sure there is a will or a way to reunite with them. However, some people believe that not all Trump supporters are racists, bigots, and/or insurrectionists, which is why they can be confused as to why people are so unwilling to put the Trump administration behind us and move on. 

I personally feel like the only way for true reunification to happen is Republicans in powerful positions cut ties with the whole Trump family. A good step would be the Senate convicting Donald Trump of inciting an insurrection at the capital and barring him from ever holding public office again. Trump harmed millions of Americans’ lives throughout his four years in office, and the only way for people who aided his destructive regime to gain respect and forgiveness from those who were harmed would be to sincerely denounce Donald Trump. It is not a statement of opinion that Donald Trump harmed people, it is a fact. The page linked here from the Center for American Progress lists 100 ways that Donald Trump’s policies in the first 100 days of his presidency harmed Americans. This list does not even include the denial of the coronavirus pandemic until 200,000 Americans had already died. Holding Trump accountable for his actions would be a significant step in unifying the United States. It is like any lesson you got in elementary school, if you hurt someone, you give them a genuine apology and try to show that you have changed by not repeating your actions. In this case, the stakes are much higher than a play time quarrel but the methods are similar, apologies and forgiveness bring people back together. 

On the other end, a big problem in recent political discussions is cancel culture. According to dictionary.com, “Cancel culture refers to the popular practice of withdrawing support for public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive,” (Lemoine). Canceling culture has even been done on a smaller scale to people who are not well-known. If people who supported Donald Trump are shamed online and cut off from relationships with liberal leaning individuals, this only pushes them closer to far-right extremists and makes them not so willing to apologize for their support of a dangerous man. Cancel culture is more harmful than it is helpful, in my opinion, because it isolates individuals and does nothing to actually help them change their ways. Conversations with people who were harmed is what helps people gain perspective, not being attacked and shamed publicly. Both sides need to listen to each other first for the reunification process to begin. Additionally, if a Democratic President or politician caused as much damage as Donald Trump did, I would want them to be held accountable for their actions as well. It goes both ways.

Works Cited:

“Jeep Super Bowl 55 Commercial – ‘The Middle Ft Bruce Springsteen.’” IGN, 7 Feb. 2021, www.ign.com/videos/jeep-super-bowl-55-commercial-the-middle-ft-bruce-springsteen.

Lemoine, Alexa. “What Does Cancel Culture Mean?” Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com, 19 Jan. 2021, www.dictionary.com/e/pop-culture/cancel-culture/.

Progress, the Center for American. “100 Ways, in 100 Days, That Trump Has Hurt Americans.” Center for American Progress, 18 Sept. 2020, www.americanprogress.org/issues/general/news/2017/04/26/431299/100-ways-100-days-trump-hurt-americans/.

Sprunt, Barbara. “’What We Needed’: Several Republican Senators Praise Biden’s Call For Unity.” NPR, NPR, 20 Jan. 2021, www.npr.org/sections/inauguration-day-live-updates/2021/01/20/958854548/what-we-needed-several-republican-senators-praise-bidens-call-for-unity.