Steve Almond recently penned a column for the Rotarian magazine (October 2016, Elect to be Civil) in which he identified some powerful dynamics that are contributing to our national political acrimony. The aspects he names are those currently sending us into increasing polarization and tribalism. They are now in play regardless of the candidates who are running.
The atmosphere is one of negative partisanship that leads people to unthinkingly endorse candidates of their own party, even when they disagree with them, voting more on loathing for the other party than for any positive positions of their own. Even the rising number of "independents" on the books - those who declare they are not beholden to any party - in actuality almost never cross party lines. They are not as independent as they present themselves.
Gone is the time of smart, congenial, principled people who cross the aisle to find solutions for the common good. Instead we have devolved into a tribal kill or be killed ethos. It is not helping our country.
Of the many factors at play Almond lifts up two particular issues that come to bear on this huge problem. The first is the sea change in the practice of journalism and its relationship to communications/technology. The second is the rise of social media.
In a time not so long ago political debate was conducted by several television networks and the newspapers. As far as television and radio were concerned they operated with a certain balance and objectivity that provided time for opposing views. "Media outlets were not allowed to operate as propaganda organs."
In 1987 the Federal Communications Commission abolished this doctrine of balance and fairness and as a result partisan media arose, especially talk radio. It looked like news but it was not. It was pure commentary acting as though it was objective. Multiply that subjectivity by the internet, blogging, hundreds of television networks some as simple as a video recorder in someone's basement, and you have the rise of polarization and the tribes. None of these "broadcasters" had to abide by the hard disciplines of real journalism. They just made it all up without proof, evidence, or data. So arose the tactic of repeating opinion and lies until they seemed true. The casualty, of course, was intelligence and truth. "That means that what we're watching and reading isn't an objective view of the world but a version of the world ..." The tribes talk to themselves but have no meaningful conversation with anyone outside the tribe. Reality becomes increasingly narrow and uninformed. We screen out any position that does not conform to our pre-existing opinion.
Whatever positives that lightning fast, egalitarian communication have provided, it has also unleashed the dark underbelly of the human nature. Without accountability for truth any opinion may dash out through the pathways of social media. It is far too easy to flash anger and unsubstantiated opinion into the digital public square. This is the cost of unmediated communication made available to all. It's a heavy cost.
He puts it this way: "The rise of social media has created a forum where competing views are constantly clashing not in thoughtful, moderated debates but in rage-fueled rants that quickly devolve into ad hominem slurs."
We are now living within this morass of public communication. It is not going away. It is up to us to make the most of it.
Now I realize that Almond's accent falls on the communication side of the problem. There is much, much more which deserves our attention. But communication dwells in the land of ideas and ideas and their consequences are no small matter.
I really appreciate the conclusion of his article, one that challenges all of us to do this differently:
"It is up to us, as individual citizens, to change the ways in which we think about and discuss politics, both online and in our civic lives. This means turning away from media outlets that prey on the seductive resentments of negative partisanship. And modeling for our children a brand of political belief based on shared values, rather than dismissive rancor."
