Modern Politics: Beyond The Slogans

Many say the true measure of politics lies with complex political policy. As opposed to political slogans, policy creates a chain reaction of complex details and events. However…if this is true, then what accounts for the current popularity of slogans?

Mostly, slogans serve as a foundation to policy. And just as a house foundation gives only a general idea of what a finished house looks like, the same holds for a political slogan.

Ironically, politics nowadays seems to start and end with the battle of slogans. Back and forth the heated rhetoric flies with slogans serving as battering rams that block off true political debate and solutions. Snappy slogans serve not only as bumper stickers – but also as ways to gain attention and build political support. 

Unfortunately, the current reliance on political slogans can actually stifle democracy. Since slogans are often presented as an absolute, with little room for negotiation, it becomes hard to reach down into the sub-variables that are the essence of politics. When one looks to the history of democracy, it’s apparent that in-depth debate has often given birth to political solutions. Once debate is closed off, the use of common standards of political inquiry become blocked. And when this happens, we find ourselves in the situation that modern politics has become – a political quagmire that relies heavily on political intimidation and smearing to gain results.

In addition, such negative tactics can result in each political side accusing the other of holding to falsehoods. In the past, the search for political truth often resulted in the merging of both sides of the political spectrum. Historically, hybrid solutions were what made democracy so effective. In modern times, the heavy use of political slogans creates an illusion that solutions to complex problems – can be solved with a slogan that can easily fit onto the bumper sticker of a car.

Instead of political slogans being used as an ending point for a dogmatic political fight; they can instead be the starting point for a political debate that looks to truly find solutions from across the spectrum. We can only hope.

The Strength & Beauty Of Democracy

Throughout history, democracies have been touted as the form of government that’s not only the most efficient, but also the most satisfying. By allowing a high amount of input across the spectrum, democracy succeeds because it empowers a large amount of stakeholders. Also, in light of recent events on the world stage, it’s clear that democracies can help create a global sense of understanding. Unfortunately though, even the strongest of democracies can have periods in their history that test its resilience.

Ever since the Fairness Doctrine for media was lifted, Americans have been exposed to a high level of political bias. As a result, a narrow view of political news is often reported now. In the past, the Fairness Doctrine required both sides of a political topic be reported. Nowadays – unless one reads multiple news sources, we tend to miss out on the true variety of modern political thought. This is because media centers often cater to one political view.                   

For years, political theorists have advocated that a range of different ideas be presented to preserve democracy. For example, a candidate’s debate allows divergent views to give voters a true choice. Respect for debate of all types has been the lifeblood of a free, efficient, and civil society. By exploring a variety of opinions, democracies have been able to find practical and holistic solutions to complex issues.

Unfortunately, we now live in an era where political purity is valued. Echo chambers – where mostly like-minded views are held, are becoming more common in both traditional and social media. And instead of honest and earnest debate being used to judge political policy – political power brokers often rely on smear campaigns to overwhelm opposition.

Interestingly, mainstream Democrats and Republicans do share similar ideas on some policy issues. Historically, the reason for this is that the American respect for spirited and honest political debate has sometimes led to practical compromise. This ability to find hybrid solutions – and blend opposite ideas together, is one of the reasons the democracy revolution of the past 230 years has been successful.

For the last 50 years, political debate in the United States has often revolved around finding a balance between capitalism and socialism. Likewise, debate regarding cultural issues often deals with finding a balance between respect for tradition, versus cultural change. Ironically, mainstream Democrats and Republicans have sometimes done a good job of balancing out these opposite ideas. This is shown by the fact that America today has aspects of the Social Democracy style of government that’s a norm for advanced democracies. Social Democracy relies on a regulated free-market to provide a large portion of goods and services, in conjunction with government services for a social safety net.

Hopefully…the United States can reinvigorate the notion that the political process is mostly a tool that exists to find the best solutions for our country. Although party politics and ideology are extremely important, the winner-takes-all mindset that’s recently evolved can have negative consequences. At the end of the day, most people make practical decisions – based on their own perceptions, on who to vote for. This doesn’t mean that there is no room for deal-making with political opponents. What it means is that America’s democratic-republic form of government actually relies upon political compromise to run well. After all, the strength and beauty of democracies lie in how they combine different ideas from across the spectrum for practical solutions.

Looking Back At United States History

Over the years, I’ve studied American History in both college and on my own. In line with this, I’ve read various schools of historical thought so I could form an educated opinion on the subject. The historians I’ve studied range from those with Marxist interpretations, to moderates who emphasized Liberalism from classical to modern, to traditionalists. Needless to say, since history is somewhat an interpretative discipline that uses facts to shape narratives, the views of America by different historians are often profoundly different. 

The Marxist influenced historians I’ve read tend to view America’s history as a series of events meant to cement in the power of the ruling class. Therefore, their views of America lacked the optimism other historians had. The moderate historians, who sometimes reflected Classical Liberalism, emphasized how the American ideal of equality of opportunity, became a key feature as America evolved and influenced the world. The traditionalist historians tended to view the United States as a good and decent country with few strong critiques. Over the course of my studies, I’ve come to the conclusion that the moderate historian’s dynamic view of American history seemed reasonable. In addition, I’ve realized that Classical Liberalism – as exemplified by the philosopher John Locke and our Founding Fathers, was not quite the same as modern Liberalism.  As many know, Classical Liberalism has much in common with modern Conservatism.

Those frustrated with America often claim that human rights progress has not been fast enough. Therefore, they sometimes turn to Marxist theory in hopes of finding answers. Although some find this theory attractive, this hope is often tempered by the fact that Marxism in practice, as opposed to theory, has not always respected human rights. In reality, Representative Democracies such as the United States seem to provide the strongest support for human rights advancements. Prior to the development of modern democracies – a movement America helped inspire, human rights protections were more rare. The Founding Fathers vision of America – as shown through the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, has provided many of the seeds of hope to address oppression. Our Constitution’s Reconstruction Amendments – which addressed racial injustice, provide proof of this. Also, modern civil rights and human rights legislation draws somewhat on the inspiration of our Founding Fathers.

The United States, as well as other democracies, has checks and balances setup to maintain societal and political balance. Understandably, this is a constant work in progress. And yes…in looking through history, America has treated certain groups unfairly. This is shown by the injustices suffered by Native Americans through the years, as well as the slavery, Jim Crow laws, and racism impacting the lives of African-Americans over time. However, if there was ever a society capable of acknowledging and rectifying historical wrongs, and respecting human rights, it’s the type of Representative Democracy America has. As many can attest to, the United States has been one of the most durable and hopeful societies in human history.       

Modern Politics: Personality vs. Policy

One of the most intensely talked about topics in modern America is politics. Undeniably, political activism now seems to be everywhere and our day-to-day life has more political overtones than ever before. As a result, few areas of society are immune to the 24-7 political theatre playing out coast to coast. Some critics complain that America’s political process is now viewed mostly as an end in itself, as opposed to a means to an end.

Interestingly…media fascination with political personalities has helped spark the growing political frenzy. As opposed to sober policy analysis, focusing on personality ensures that politics will retain an edgy quality that’s sure to enthrall.

Even though the media’s focus on political personalities has grown of late, does that mean most voters are immune to voting on political policy? Maybe not. In actuality, many voters still vote based on political policy and its philosophical implications. Tellingly, those who vote on policy have a point system of priorities that influences their voting. In addition, even though social pressure is strong to dislike or even hate opposing political parties, many Americans have respect for certain features and politicians from both political parties.

A key policy in modern politics that forms an umbrella over many other issues is the ongoing debate between globalism and the nation-state. And yes, on the issues that are influenced by this debate, there’s much disagreement over policy particulars. However, amongst many voters, there are overlapping ideas that seek a balance between the extremes. After all, just as the burgeoning organic food industry reflects a need for local influences, many feel that respect for a nation-state, with its history and constitution, helps maintain some local control on the global stage. Likewise, in defense of aspects of globalism, its been noted that international trade, and the resulting influence it has in creating a cross-pollination of ideas that result in a melting pot, has benefit for all.

By shifting the focus towards personality, political operatives have succeeded in mounting smear campaigns against politicians. As a result, its now hard to truly debate complex issues such as globalism. Smear campaigns on both sides of the political aisle often now supersede political policy analysis. In line with this, its been noted that President Trump’s style is often abrasive against political opponents that attempt to smear him. Although some try to just blame Trump for abrasive politics, its obvious that Trump has had to face personal attacks that encompass everything from his appearance, to family history. And likewise, many Democrats are also victims of personal attacks. And on it goes on a daily basis.

Ironically, the complexity of modern life demands that policy still be a main focus with political debate. Without actual policy analysis, we may start to feel lost and confused due to the increasingly high-tech nature of our expansive bureaucracies. Although it’s tempting to view politics as tawdry and salacious theatre, we can’t ignore the fact that policy is still the core of America’s political process.

 

 

 

 

 

The Different Types Of Socialism

To most of us, socialism conjures up many images. These range from modern American politicians, to the Social Democracy nations of Scandinavia, to communist countries such as modern-day North Korea, and then to the most famous socialist in history…Karl Marx. Undoubtedly, with so many images created by the word socialism, it’s hard to know who owns the definition of the term.

Although Marxian socialism as practiced in communist countries is probably the most famous example, Marx is hardly the last word. Throughout history, the concept of socialism has had many adherents dating back to ancient Greece and the philosopher Plato.

Over the past 200 years there have been many socialist thinkers that not only differed in impact from Marx, they also differed in their ideas about free-markets and democracy. When one looks at leaders such as John Stuart Mill, Bertrand Russell, and Clement Attlee, one discovers thinkers who looked at socialism as something to be used in combination with both capitalism and democracy. These leaders were influential in the evolution of Social Democracy. At times, some advocates for Social Democracy call themselves Democratic Socialists.

What makes the practice and rhetoric of Marxian socialism different is its emphasis that capitalism is exploitive. In addition, the rigid way that communism has been practiced is another way it’s differed from other forms of socialism. Although its been proven since the fall of the Soviet Union that Marxian communism is weak economically, there are many who still adhere to the Marxian premise that capitalism creates exploitation.

Therefore, although the economic premise of Marxism is problematic, the influence of Marx historically and on contemporary culture looms large. Although many people may not describe themselves as Marxists, they may agree with Marx’s theory that capitalist culture is exploitive. As a result, on many issues that address social change, a common way to challenge tradition is to claim that a certain practice is exploitive. And yes, exploitation does exist in many areas and needs to be addressed. However, it’s fair to say that the levels of exploitation some claim exist, are not always apparent to all.  

Obviously, socialism and capitalism can co-exist. As many know, the products and ideas of a capitalist system enhance the creative way we lead our lives. On a daily basis, we express our freedom and make decisions about how to live based on our interactions with a free-market. Therefore, in light of these positive aspects, its obvious capitalism’s not as exploitive as some claim. Where aspects of socialism have a role in modern life is in ensuring a social safety net, regulating marketplaces to ensure equality of opportunity, and upholding common environmental standards. This ability to rely on free-market capitalism to provide most of the goods and services of society, while also ensuring a moderate level of government services for infrastructure, security, human services and defense, is the hallmark of the most successful and least radical form of socialism…Social Democracy. Most democracies, including America, have aspects of Social Democracy

In modern America there’s now a strong push for what some envision as more Social Democracy. Interestingly though, the rhetoric these advocates use is sometimes similar to the rhetoric Marxian socialists use. This is shown when they infer that both capitalists and capitalism are exploitive and greedy. Hopefully, when people nowadays advocate for more Social Democracy, they’ll realize that demonizing capitalism often turns many practical people off. In reality, the ideal of Social Democracy is often best achieved by first acknowledging the useful role that capitalism plays in modern life.

 

 

 

 

Social Progress & Racism

One of the most frequently mentioned topics in today’s American culture is racism. For most of us, not a day goes by without hearing of someone being called out as racist. In addition, some claim that America is a country where racism is systemic and institutionalized. Why is it that almost 50 years after the Civil Rights gains of the 1960s, America is still grappling with the idea of racism? And in addition, why is the racist tag applied so frequently? 

Obviously…the term racism can mean different things to different people. In line with this, the use of the term can mean different things in different eras of history. For instance, the use of the racist term meant something different in the era before the Civil Rights gains of the 1960s. When one looks back at the Jim Crow practices common before the 1960s, one can definitely see that many of the legal protections that African-Americans have now, didn’t exist. And yes, from a legal standpoint, some can say that life for blacks during the post Civil Rights era is easier. However, if things have improved for blacks on a legal level, then what accounts for the fact that claims of racism are so high in today’s world?

There are many reasons why claims of racism still exist. To some, these claims exist because there’s a justifiable perception that people of color still do not receive the respect they deserve. To these people there’s still much work to be done to address systemic racism in all of its forms ranging from subtle to the more obvious. In addition and from another angle, some claim the racist tag is applied loosely nowadays as a political tool to create division and call out white people. These people claim that some issues now being called racist fall more in line with preferences. They claim politicians and activists are creating racial hypersensitivity to exploit fear.

For many of us, the concept of social progress is real and tangible. In line with this, many of us hope to envision a future where racism of any kind, whether it’s aimed at blacks, other minorities, and even whites, is seen as a concept of a bygone era. To further the cause of social progress it’s important to help America live up to its pledge to create a society where equal opportunity for all races is respected. In addition, it’d also behoove us to be careful of applying the racist tag to both situations and individuals too freely. After all, the negative effects of racism are shown not only with actual racist practices, it’s also shown by unjustly accusing people of racism when that may not be their intent.

 

 

A Modern Debate: Equality Of Opportunity vs. Equality Of Outcome

A hotly contested political debate occurring is about the eternally powerful concept of equality. This debate conjures up many mental images. These images range from The Founding Fathers and their views on equality, to celebrities and athletes who espouse equality ideals, to modern Marxists who claim that the goal of a totally equal society is still possible and desirable. Yet…as with many philosophical ideas, equality lies within the eye of the beholder. This is why the current debate is so strong.

In a nutshell, a difference of opinion exists as to whether it’s better to have equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome. This is where the debate gets intense. Basically, those who believe in a strong market-based economy tend to favor building a society that has a certain measure of equality of opportunity. In line with this is the assumption that its not in society’s interest to dictate who succeeds the most in life. On the other end of the spectrum are those who say that creating equality of opportunity is difficult at best. They claim that systemic limitations place certain groups at a disadvantage and that government needs to work at creating equality of outcome for them. Basically, many Republicans and Libertarians are in favor of a society that works to maintain equality of opportunity. On the other side, many Democrats and Socialists are in favor of a society that works to create equality of outcome.

On a common sense level, its obvious that creating a society where everyone has equal opportunity to achieve equal outcomes is difficult to achieve. After all, even in communist societies there are powerful members of the communist party that have opportunities for success ordinary citizens don’t. As a result, the outcomes in a communist society are not as equal as leaders advertise. Therefore, even in countries that verbally place total equality as a goal, the actual attainment of the goal proves hard to achieve.

The end of the Cold War and breakup of the Soviet Union ushered in recognition that attaining total equality of both opportunity and outcome was no longer possible. This recognition influenced communist countries like China to adopt free-market ideas into their economy. As a result, China now has a dynamic economy. The abandonment by China of seeking total equality taps into the psychological belief that people are not as bothered by inequality as previously thought. This is because many people value having individual freedom instead of creating a totally equal society. 

One of the difficulties encountered in communist countries is that to achieve total equality they need tight control on most economic activity. As a result, economic production in communist countries is often weak due to the high level of control the government exerts. And subsequently, the low level of economic activity in these countries often has a detrimental impact on the lives of everyday citizens. The day-to-day struggles of those currently living in North Korea and Venezuela are examples of communist countries that have sacrificed economic progress in the name of creating total equality.

If total equality has been difficult to achieve, then why does it still have such a pull on the psyche? And in addition, why do so many in all walks of life talk about it in various ways? Part of the explanation for this is the fact that its been proven in many countries that having a certain amount of equality has created a more fair society. Therefore, human nature being what it is, the question of balancing out equality issues with other factors can sometimes be downplayed. The reasoning with equality is that if a moderate amount has been helpful, then increasing that amount will improve things more. Unfortunately, pushing for total equality often throws many things out of balance and can lead to tyranny.

In countries with a strong free-market such as America, many believe that equality of opportunity creates a dynamic society that benefits all in the long run. When this respect for equality of opportunity is coupled with the fact Americans enjoy a high amount of personal freedom, it explains how American history is full of stories of many who charted their own course and achieved much in their lifetimes.

As for the idea of trying to guarantee a certain amount of equality of outcome for those who’ve been at a disadvantage, it’s hard to say this is wrong. After all, it’s been shown that when judiciously applied, affirmative action has helped certain groups achieve a level of success they may not have achieved otherwise.

Although the debate between equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome will endure, the concept of ensuring a basic level of equality and fairness has proven to be eternal. The nature of the equality debate mostly revolves around how much equality is practical economically, and whether a loss of personal freedom is worth creating a totally equal society.

Historically, America represented one of the strongest breaks from the monarchical form of government. In this sense, America’s respect for equality of opportunity, whereby the old class structures of the monarchy were swept away, helped inspire many other countries to find the strength to give democracy a try. For this, we all should be eternally grateful.

 

The Modern Concept Of White Privilege

When I was an 8-year old child in 1968, I took part in a voluntary school-bussing program to promote desegregation in Syracuse, New York. In the spring of 1968, soon after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, letters were sent to some families in the suburbs of Syracuse asking if they’d be interested in having their child attend a school in the inner city of Syracuse. At the time, I remember my father and mother debating why a young white boy like me should be allowed to go to a predominantly black school. Many relatives and family friends were concerned it may not be a good idea to send me far from my neighborhood. My father, who was an editor at a large newspaper in Syracuse, was supportive of me being bussed. In time, my mother became supportive of the idea too.

To my parent’s credit, they didn’t make the decision for me to attend the school and didn’t pressure me. Before a decision was made my parents asked me what I thought of the idea. At first I didn’t know what to think. However… I soon came to support the idea and agreed to change schools in the fall. The adventure had begun. To this day I still am glad I had the experience of going to Martin Luther King Elementary. 

My memories of the school have many positive aspects. However, the transition to my new surroundings took a while. Although it was difficult to get used to sitting on a bus for over an hour a day, I eventually got used to the ride. In addition, many features of the school were radically different than what I was used to. For one, I felt alone as a young white boy in a sea of black faces. In addition, since we had very few blacks in my suburban school, I now knew what it was like to be a minority. Understandably, my appearance at the black school caused reactions in my black classmates. For more times than I can remember I was called “Honky” as I was jokingly asked by my classmates whether I was lost or why I was far from home.

Interestingly and contrary to the concerns of many, I was never beat-up or in any fights in my new school. Although there were a few times when I was nudged by assertive boys or glared at, I never had concerns for my well-being and made friends in my new school. In particular, I became close friends with two young black boys in my 4th grade who looked out for me. We made an interesting trio on the campus of school. In addition to my close friends looking out for me, what helped me cope was the fact I realized at a young age that who I was as an individual actually mattered more than the fact I was white. Soon after I got to my new surroundings I learned to defuse tensions caused by my whiteness. What I quickly learned was that if I was defensive or reacted angry to the joking caused by my appearance, that things could escalate.

When I look back on my experience with the integration of blacks and whites, I realize that the experience definitely helped me understand that it is who we are as human beings, regardless of race, that truly matters. As many of us remember, many appeals were made by leaders such as Martin Luther King to not only seek equality of opportunity for blacks, but to also have people focus on the content of the character of each person as opposed to just their skin color.

When we fast-forward to the issues of today, lets try to understand that the modern concept of white privilege can be used to judge a person solely on the color of their skin. To truly heal racial tensions in America it may be best if we try not to look at outward appearance and race as a predominant factor in our lives. Obviously, racial differences are there and cannot be ignored. And yes…there is such a thing as the fact that certain whites go through life in ways that may be easier than some blacks. However, if we focus on race predominantly in judging individuals we’re basically reinforcing a stereotypical approach.

In today’s America it is valid to seek equality of opportunity for minorities. However, to make race such an intense focus in our day to day lives creates high levels of tension throughout all of society. Ultimately, and in the final analysis, it is the content of our character as individuals that matters most in life. When all Americans of all races put the quality of an individual’s character above their outward appearance, we may finally get to the place that Martin Luther King dreamt about. 

 

 

 

 

 

The Political Balance Between Modern Society & The Environment

This is a unique time in history. On one hand, the blessings of our high-tech lifestyle are everywhere to be seen. On the other hand, a high amount of discernable social alienation is visible too. What explains this situation? Historically…material comfort and technological advancements have sometimes resulted in an increase of social stability.

As is well known, a tremendous amount of anxiety exists currently in America and through the world about the state of the environment. Although fear of the future has been strong since the writings of the economist Malthus in the 1800’s, this thinking is now mainstream. Indeed, some fear that environmental damage caused by man is almost too strong to correct. These intense concerns help explain the modern disconnect that makes it hard for many to be grateful for the blessings of technology.

Although there’s intense debate about environmental policy nowadays, it’s good for perspective to look back on the dawn of America’s environmental movement. This movement was born out of concern for the tremendous smog and pollution that America had in the 1960’s and 1970’s. As opposed to the more complex and politicized environmental debates now occurring, the pollution crisis that America suffered back then was obvious to almost all. In addition, many of America’s rivers, as well as the Great Lakes, were clearly suffering from decades of having raw sewage and chemicals dumped directly into them.

When Republican President Nixon formed the Environmental Protection Agency, many on both sides of the political aisle breathed a sigh of relief. This was because there was then born a concerted and nationwide effort that largely succeeded in cleaning up America’s air and waterways. Improved vehicle emissions standards, as well as The Clean Water Act contributed to this success.

When one fast-forwards to the environmental debates currently happening in America today, things seem more confusing. Interestingly, some Liberals who used to be known for being open-minded on many topics are now inpatient with being questioned about their views on the environment. This is shown by how they refer to those questioning their environmental views as deniers.

On the Conservative side, there’s some skepticism about modern environmental concerns. On issues ranging from climate change to natural resource use, some Conservatives favor giving freedom to business to operate without the strict regulations Liberals want. In addition, some Conservatives feel its possible that some change in our environment is due somewhat to natural forces at play with the earth. A glance at geologic history shows the earth has had cycles of change going back thousands of years.

To many Americans watching this intense debate play out, it’s difficult to find candidates offering a middle ground between development and environmental protection. Interestingly, average Americans on both political sides are often in favor of increasing the use of clean energy when practical to do so. This is shown by the fact there’s strong interest in using solar power as a secondary energy option on new construction.

However, even if the use of solar, wind, and geothermal power were to increase, the fact remains that for the immediate future, green energy usage will be used mostly in addition to traditional sources of power. To go totally green with energy use is not easy to do in the immediate future. This is shown by the fact that a strong amount of fossil fuel usage is still needed in countries that have pushed green energy such as Germany.

On other environmental issues such as logging and mining, there exists resistance on the part of Liberals to allow for the development that Conservatives say is necessary for a strong economy. Obviously, there needs to be some natural resource usage to sustain the complexity of modern life. After all, with the scrutiny that the more synthetic plastics now are undergoing, turning away from natural resources will be difficult. At best we can minimize natural resource and plastic use by strongly enhancing the already successful recycling movement.

A middle ground with environmental issues will remain difficult to stake out in today’s political climate. Currently, the political dialogue regarding environmental issues seems to involve a pendulum of backlashes. When each side gets in power now, they often swing almost farther away from where they were before. This process then cements in another round of a potentially stronger backlash. And so the cycle repeats.

However, a common sense political balance between the economic needs of modern society and the environment is doable if both sides can truly listen to each other more. Only by thoroughly examining the positions on both sides of the political aisle will we be able to come up with compromises that not only protect the environment, but also allow for an adequate amount of natural resource use for modern society. If there can be more of a concerted effort to protect the environment prudently while still allowing for development, its possible that we can then regain the optimism we once had regarding modern life, progress, and technology.

Modern Politics Without The Fairness Doctrine

Today’s political dialogue is full of intensely absolutist rhetoric that at times borders on the apocalyptic. In terms of pure theatre and drama, the constant parades of verbal and written shout-downs ensure high ratings, popular social media sites, and a steady audience of gawkers. However…is this the best way to address the issues facing our country?

Obviously, strong debate and dialogue has and will always be necessary in political circles. This is because the issues at stake are so very important to all of us. Unfortunately though, the level of political noise now being generated often leaves little room for the opposition to truly debate. On a rhetorical level, many political pundits and politicians infer that the opposition is now an enemy that needs to be defeated totally and at all costs.

Sadly, such rhetoric can lead to unfortunate consequences on both sides. As we’ve seen, political gatherings are sometimes being upstaged with violence, and some politicians, political pundits, and government officials have been verbally assaulted or escorted out of restaurants simply because of their political views. Is this the type of America that we want?

Although the social unrest of the 1960’s is often talked of as a high-water mark for American unrest, there’s a chance that we border on surpassing that era. After all, in the 1960’s the civil unrest pitted those in the Civil Rights, Anti-War, and other movements against the “Establishment.” In those days “The Establishment” consisted of both Republican and Democratic politicians at all levels. When we fast-forward to today, the social unrest centers around a philosophical split between Republican and Democratic ideals. This split not only impacts politics, it impacts all of society. This is the reason why America is experiencing a surge in “Political Segregation” maybe unseen since the Civil War era. As we know, friendships between those with opposing political views are now being highly discouraged. As a result, not only are friendships being destroyed over politics, families are sometimes split over irreconcilable political views.

There’s a line where the concept of Us vs. Them can cross over into chaos. On a political level, we may be experiencing that. By dehumanizing those with opposing political views as an enemy to be ridiculed at all costs, we’re creating the angry-mob mindset that philosophers such as Montesquieu warned could occur with democracy. This herd-like propensity of being quick to anger is being shown with the frequent social media gaffes that occur lately on all levels. Some people now react first, and think later.

As a result of these trends many ask…how did we get here?

Although there are many theories for how we got to this point, one important factor that led to today’s political climate was the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine for media in 1987. Once this was repealed it became easy for media outlets to tilt their presentation of factual information more towards the perception of either Liberal or Conservative bias. When the Fairness Doctrine was in place there was a need to present both sides of an issue as factually accurate as possible so that the viewer could decide what to think.

Thirty years after the repeal of the doctrine we’re now seeing that relying on actual facts in the news has been replaced with bending the facts as far as possible for either a Liberal or Conservative effect. This has led to the frequent charge on both sides politically about “fake news.” And yes, this mindset has infiltrated social media strongly. A glance at some political social media sites will quickly give a glimpse of the subjective bias in store.

Although Conservative media has often been blamed for creating the echo-chamber media that we have today, it’s become apparent that Liberals have caught up to Conservatives in regards to media bias. In addition, some feel that Liberals are surpassing Conservatives in sheer numbers of media advocates for their cause.

As for an answer to the political chaos we see, there’s no single answer that’ll restore civility and fair play. Basically, an important thing to remember on all levels is that the concepts of Liberal-Progressive vs. Conservative-Traditional have been around for centuries. Each has their place. After all, as the cliché “today’s radical is tomorrow’s conservative” implies, each of us can possess both Progressive and Traditional tendencies at different times. Therefore, many of us can at times both understand and empathize with opposing political views.

Although the chance is slim to none that the Fairness Doctrine can be ever put back in place, it’s important to realize that all of us have within ourselves the ability to be fair. This idea is so very important to remember in these chaotic political times.