Dissolving the Spectrum

CAROLINE ROBBINS | NOVEMBER 6, 2020 | OPINION

It is nearly impossible to discuss politics in the modern climate of the United States of America without it dissolving into an oversimplified argument over the most basic of core values of each side. From social media posts to news outlets, accepting the bias of a particular party and completely disregarding the impact that decision has results in the current crisis where there is seemingly no middle ground. This acceptance of a rudimentary, basic understanding of politics and the subsequent removal of nuance has bred a country constantly wary and hostile of its own citizens, only heightened by the 2020 election where these political tensions will be brought to the forefront.

The initial divisions between parties have always been prevalent, but this form of extreme dedication to the title of Republican, Democrat, or other party is relatively new. Parties were established to collectivize a group around a set of core values; and inherently, they offer a sense of unity, balance, and healthy conflict. Having dissenting opinions on issues of importance is what led to the progress of this nation as a whole. The divisions between parties meant that there was a way to discuss positions and propose new concepts on how to tackle the issues facing the general public and hold the government accountable for its actions. However, now it has become a battle line, and the forbidden ground between them is considered disrespect to the values of the party.

The reporting of news in America is what many point to as the central cause of the polarization plaguing the nation. Outlets began to report news with a clear political skew, omitting facts or simply not addressing issues, often peppered with accusations or ultimatums. Regardless of how it was done, there was suddenly no reason to hide a political agenda among reporting. Nothing remained nuanced, and some media groups welcomed their biases and sympathies which brought them consistent viewership among a set demographic. 

As it became more and more clear that the only choice was to choose a side, political parties became the sole identity of some citizens. Suddenly identifying as a Republican or Democrat meant one was a “Nazi or a Socialist” in the eyes of some. Suddenly there was no way to have a middle-ground opinion on an issue like immigration or police reform without experiencing a blast of insults from both sides. And in government, there was no way to find a compromise. Social media and casual viewership only seemed to augment this, with policy debated among political scientists becoming petty comment wars and easily-reposted hashtags or slogans. The simplification of policy into a means of antagonizing those with dissenting opinions has established a climate so polarized, that there seems to be no hope for compromise.

With the line drawn in the sand of what is acceptable for each side, there is a constant pressure to remain politically correct. Writing an endorsement can alienate the opposing party and undermine the credibility of a news organization in the eyes of the people. Making a post with the wrong terminology can assign someone as an unforgivable bigot. As a nation, there is no way to survive with this logic.

The nature of progress is compromise, of acknowledging that one side does not know all, and that there is credibility in debate. There needs to be a sense of understanding among citizens, that there are some issues which will be the end-all-be-all for some, but also that there is more to an issue than a catchy slogan, a charismatic figure, or a social media revolution. To overcome the polarization that has wrecked America, there needs to be a restructuring of the  political spectrum. A rewriting which re-evaluates what issues truly are common law, and what needs to be debated. A cultural shift also needs to occur, where debates become a place for healthy conversation, where individuals are not labeled for having a different opinion, and the freedom of the press means not that the press has the freedom to report the interests of only one political party, but where the press reports the facts as objectively as possible to encourage critical thinking. When the dust has settled following this election, these problems will still exist, albeit less prominently, but we still need to establish a more nuanced political discourse that allows for true discussion and representation of values as we continue to move in new directions.