Anytime you pick up a newspaper or switch on the television today, you get the feeling that the situation in American society—not just American politics— is very grim. The polarization that exists today may not have been seen on mainland U.S. since the Civil War or Civil Rights era.
We currently have two large cable networks pledging their support to political parties, and they have many opinion-centered shows where anchors torture us with their views. If you don’t believe me, just watch the opening remarks of any of these shows on any night. Anchors fervently incite their audience with hate and repugnance for one other.
A local example of polarization exists around the recent religious freedom bill passed in Mississippi. Most people are either extremely for the bill or extremely against it. I’ve found very few people, like me, who want to take both sides into account— I acknowledge the injustice the bill does to the LGBT community, as well as the rights the bill provides for the religious. There is criticism I want to make on the House Bill 1523’s ambiguous wording, but I am also willing to listen to people who support this law.
Currently, I fear there is no place for me in American politics. I do not want to run naked in Manhattan, but I also do not want to terrorize Muslims in my community by holding guns outside their place of worship. As an objective journalist, I aim neither to fly the Gay Pride flag nor the Confederate flag. Will America still give me a chance to fly the flag that flew high on Fort McHenry in September of 1812— the Star-Spangled Banner?
The problem of polarization also comes into play with journalists who sometimes become quickly impassioned about their stories. After Governor Bryant signed House Bill 1523 into law, the editors of major newspapers across the state and the country openly spoke out against the law. In my mind, this morphs news platforms that should be unbiased spaces for debate. If those that are supposed to be neutral begin tweeting personal opinions about legislation, it kills incentive for a person with opposing views to engage with certain news sources. Since when is it acceptable for the media—the so-called “fourth pillar of democracy”— to be so openly romanced by different parties in the Capitol?
Ultimately, polarization is not just an issue in Mississippi. It is nation-wide. Many articles have been written on the evils of polarization— but depending on what publication you read, they still declare either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton more guilty for perpetuating it.
A Pew research study conducted in 2014 showed that Americans have grown even more polarized in recent years. In 1994, 49 percent of Americans said they had mixed feelings about both primary political parties. Now, that number has dropped below 39 percent. This means that both red and blue parties have become more powerful and thus further apart. These days, there are very few people in the middle.
The Pew research also found that a majority of people on both sides feel that the other party is a threat to the country. More than 40 percent of people in both parties have a deep feeling of dislike for individuals that don’t share their political views. Are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton simply the products of this vengeance?
We saw bi-partisan deadlock in Washington, D.C. a few years ago when the federal government shut down. We have also witnessed extreme dislike for our current president, Barack Obama. People are bitter to the extent that they are willing to make statements intended to humiliate the man holding the highest office in our country. Republicans accepted and perpetuated lies about the Obama’s religious views and birthplace in a way that made their agenda seem hate-fueled. While I do not agree with everything that President Obama does, I do not harbor any personal hate for him.
Is this political yet deeply personal bitterness a result of average U.S. citizens feeling powerless without ties to a political party? A Princeton University survey of the American political system asserted that America is no longer a democracy; they stated that our nation is becoming an oligarchy, which means only wealthy elites— like those often at the top of both Democratic and Republican parties— brandish a majority of the nation’s power.
However, the recent intensification of polarization could also be the result of a two-party system that has existed for too long, and basically confines Americans to two very limited political ideologies. What if a person is fiscally conservative but socially liberal? Will he be able to make a choice he finds acceptable between either hard-right Donald Trump or hard-left Bernie Sanders? I find these questions immensely troubling in this 2016 election season.
Political rhetoric is a great pastime, but it should not lead individuals to create displeasure for others who don’t hold similar views or support the same candidates. It is okay to differ; the Constitution gives you a right to dissent along with the right to free speech. You don’t always have to agree, but you can willfully keep it classy when discussing politics with your opposition.
A party that advocates one religion and one culture to create one unified nation is bogus. The Gay Pride flag, and the Confederate flag may both deserve to fly in different peoples’ eyes, but what must always fly higher is the flag with the stars and the stripes.
