By Steve Price
Eighteen years ago, I wrote an article for my college newspaper in which I decried the rise of partisan politics in the US Congress, warning that the infusion of sectarian groupthink would create a cascading flow of vitriol and venomous rhetoric that would make bipartisanship a nearly intractable proposition. Then-current resident in the White House, George W. Bush was taking a beating in the press over the escalating violence in Iraq following the 2003 Invasion and toppling of Saddam Hussein’s government, perhaps one of the last great forks in the road where the left and the right diverged, seemingly never to meet again on any issue whatsoever.
In the intervening eighteen years, the American political discourse has become increasingly toxic thanks to a number of factors: the aforementioned exponential growth of division between the parties, the presidency of Donald Trump and his take-no-prisoners mentality, among others. No single issue can claim sole responsibility for this rise in toxicity, but one forum has certainly made it easier for that toxicity to spread – social media. In the digital age, news and information has rapidly evolved to become a product of the moment, with events captured in an instant and wired into cyberspace a heartbeat later. Soon enough, the political tribes seize upon the news, battle lines are drawn, and another pitched battle between the camps begins.
Political tribalism is neither endemic to the United States, nor a novelty here: lest we forget, there were some contentious days on the floor of Congress in the buildup to the Civil War where people were literally being pistol-whipped. But the speed at which the left and the right are dividing in the current political landscape is nonetheless alarming. Twenty years ago, someone as boisterous and as volatile as Donald Trump would never have been seen as a viable contender for the White House. Today, he’s a serious contender to reclaim the nomination for the office he’s already held once, even as a Congressional committee investigates whether or not he attempted to instigate a coup against the US government during the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot.
One could only imagine how a past president such as Dwight Eisenhower or Jimmy Carter – two men known for their strength of character and moral compass – would handle a debate stage with Trump.
Donald Trump is not the catalyst of the age; rather, he is a product of it. In an era where political lines are drawn and crossing over to the other side might as well be engaging in career seppuku for politicians, it is only natural that a candidate like Trump should rise to the forefront. Every political caucus in the United States is screaming for a champion right now, someone that will stand up to the vile wickedness of the opposition and put America back on the right track. Each side views the other as un-American and wicked. Ironically, albeit depressingly, both sides do agree on one thing however: the survival of American democracy is in serious jeopardy.
An admonition against this brand of tribalism only carries so much weight in an age where memes creatively find new ways to discreetly conceal euphemisms for expletives directed at political targets. When both sides view the other as the enemy, dialogue and understanding are difficult ideas to pollinate. But as individuals caught in the cacophony of noise, there is a fundamental personal danger to being caught up in the violent tempest of political passions. Tribalism, more than anything else, robs us of our ability to think as individuals, replacing it with the kind of collective thought processes that George Orwell conceived of in his seminal work 1984. The news media, once considered the fourth estate of the American establishment, is now subdivided into specific lanes where individuals receive the edification for their own preconceived biases against the other side. Social media reinforces the echo chambers that satiates our desire to be on the winning side. It is us against them, and the ‘us’ must always win.
Groupthink reduces independent thought to talking points and spin, concocted often by charlatans who offer a product that can give you the natural high tribalism provides, the euphoria of being part of a virtuous collective. How ironic it is that traditional notions of individualism and collectivism are upended in the modern age; how much more the tragic that many lack the basic understanding between the two. Everything is readily branded now, brought down to simple slogans and catchphrases – reduceable simplicity – that even the most basic among us can understand. The high school dropout with more teeth than I.Q. points can understand political iconography and symbolism at the end of the day. If you have more than two functioning brain cells, you are expected to have ‘a political team’, or else you are thought to be a lazy reprobate that has as much culpability in the ills of the country as the political enemy.
This website is founded on the principle of helping to refine the connoisseur within, to help you find your better self in a world full of choices designed by advertisers after your wallet rather than your betterment. Part of our mission is to present worldviews and takes on critical issues that can help further that noble cause. In this instance, finding your better self comes with a warning label. To act in defiance of the political mandate of the age is to invite potential stress into your personal relationships; not all are so eager to give up the tribal loyalty that the major political parties engender in people today. To reject political tribalism is to invite the potential for a stern talking to from friends who may think you have dove off the deep end.
Even so, the merit of standing on your own two feet politically carries incalculable benefits and merits the risk in a further analysis, as much for the sake of fostering some modicum of intelligent conversation in the sea of nonsensical voices as for any other reason. Having conviction of belief is a wonderful thing because it drives us into passionate apologetics, defending our cause célèbre with vigor, challenging us to rationalize our passion with logic and reason. It is one thing for a conservative to say they support a strong military, or for a progressive to support nationalized healthcare; to support a proposition not with blind loyalty but with reasoned arguments based in fact rather than opinion, that is the hallmark of intellectualism. And in an age where things are constantly being dumbed down, we need more intellectualism, not less.
Everyone should have a political stance, because everyone has a stake in the game at the end of the day. One should never advocate for political apathy, no matter how inviting the premise may seem in an age where political leadership is so unappetizing to many on either side of the aisle. But that stance should never been chosen out of intellectual laziness, merely picked out of a proverbial hat full of talking points being bandied about in the echo chambers of the world wide web. Our personal integrity as individuals rides on our ability to demonstrate a higher capacity for thought and self-awareness than other animals. Some people may enjoy being dumb as a stump, but to willingly let oneself succumb to that level of ignorance for the sake of laziness will never not be an indictment on said person’s moral character and integrity.
For those reading that have never taken an active interest in politics and would not know where to start for fear of being sucked into the echo chamber, a simple solution is present that applies in a one size fits all-style form: read as much as you can. Never limit yourself to a single website or writer, but find multiple websites covering the same issue. See how different groups cover a story, notice how their political persuasions may slant their coverage. Do your own research, see what makes the most sense to you independent of what people tell you to think. Surprisingly enough, people removed from an echo chamber long enough can start to find common ground with the former opposition, who it turns out may not be the devil in disguise after all. Kennedy’s seminal Cold War quote regarding the shared values that all people cling to still rings true today, even amidst the all the noise to the contrary:
“For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”
I would invite you to meditate on those words today and see if a common link could not be found with someone that thinks differently from you. For if all we see in our neighbor is the enemy, what does that say about us? And if all we can say about our ability to think is that others have already done our thinking for us, have we really done any thinking at all?
