So, here we go again - it's election season, where every 4 years, (most) Americans collectively lose their minds. Last election, I did a sort of "Megathread", where I put all my political thoughts in one place instead of mentioning them here and there in my blog entries, so they can be easily skipped. 4 years ago, I also said that I feel "partisanship" is the most important issue the US is facing right now. Well, I haven't changed my mind, and it's something I've thought about a lot in that time. I also have no one to talk with about it, so for my own catharsis, I thought I'd write it here. Even though I'm probably well within the Dunning-Kruger Effect, I thought I'd share my thoughts, and how we can all do our small part to fix it.
History Time!
I know this could be hard to believe, but it didn't used to be this way. The US's political party duopoly have been pretty set in stone for arguably close to 200 years, although there has been a lot of changes on the way. Of course there have always been disagreements, but it seems to have really picked up in the 90s. A common argument I've heard is that Newt Gingrich is to blame, while others have a more nuanced view. Regardless, Newt helped to get the ball rolling, and proved by winning elections, that it is better to to tear down the other party rather than work with them. And others started to see the appeal of this style, politicians or not - for example, Rush Limbaugh would rarely talk about how to "fix" problems on his show. Unless the "fix" was to defeat Democrats, because of course they are the source of all problems in the world. I know this because I listened to him for years (not to get into that, but because I had a long commute, and podcasts didn't exist yet). Others like Hannity and Carlson have kept it going, and continue to fan the fire.
Enter Trump
I don't think Trump ever took notes from them - I mean, he doesn't strike me as the "note taking" type. But they may have inadvertently created an environment where he could succeed. I think his whole thing is that he wants attention (and you can read into that however you want). He moved his family's company from Queens to Manhattan, I think, primarily to be the center of attention. I was actually curious if he made money on this, so I did the math - Fred Trump's estate at the time of death, invested with compounding interest, comes out to be about 5.4 billion today. Last I saw, Donald's net worth was estimated to be 5.5 billion. So, if he exaggerated that number even a little, he actually did worse than just selling everything he had and dumping it into the S&P 500. Food for thought.
But even as a kid, I remember Trump - he was constantly on the cover of the tabloids at the supermarket, you know, right next to "Bat Boy". And of course I didn't know or care about him, but the fact that some real estate dude from New York is in the consciousness of some 6 year old in Kentucky is pretty weird, and kind of speaks to his ability to get himself out there. So I have to give him props for that, he is the embodiment of "There's no such thing as bad press." But the "National Enquirer tabloid world" was mostly separate from the political world. He was the first to mix it together, and it was a big hit. He had everyone's eyes and ears already, and knew how to keep those eyes and ears on him.
It's not a Popularity Contest, but it is a Popularity Contest
Henry Ford famously said something like "If I had asked people what they want, they would say faster horses." I think people are pretty bad at saying what they actually want. If you ask people what's important to you in politics, they'll say "Issue X". But I think what many really want is to just be "with" the popular person. I mean, why not? I suppose we evolved to want to be accepted in society, because being alone is dangerous - so better to conform to the majority. So it's kind of this emperor's new clothes situation - anyone could do research to know he's not exactly the best guy, but the more momentum he has, the harder it is to speak up against the group. Instead, it's easier to go along with it, even to the point where it is easier to deny he ever said what he actually said.
But there was always a kind of a societal balance for that. You still had to go out to meet people and interact with others. And who knows what their political opinion is? That's not something that usually comes up at first, and certainly not something you could curate. People would push back on you, challenge you, and show there's a different point of view. It was sometimes uncomfortable, but necessary.
It's Actually a Series of Tubes
And then social media. I don't blame folks like Zuckerberg - any more than I blame the butter industry for making me gain weight. He found a market, and gave people what they wanted, even if they didn't know it themselves. But what nobody could have predicted is how incredibly unprepared most were for the flood of bullshit heading in their direction.
Well, most. I think myself and some others have a very different relationship with the internet. I was online a lot in the dial-up days, and let me tell you, it was not the same. Not just the speed, but also other important things, like how versatile the English language is in regards to creating ethnic slurs. For its many, many faults, the old internet was the Wild West, where anything went, which also meant everyone is a liar. I mean, you'd need to carefully inspect every file on Napster to see if there wasn't an "exe" extension stuck to the end. Or you'd go to download a 10-second video clip, and there were 6 download buttons - choose carefully, because one is the real file, and the others will make your computer burst into flames. I grew up believing everyone and everything on the internet is out to trick me, and never to be trusted - and I still feel that way, offline or not. I know most people don't have this same point of view. I can't blame them, now the internet is like Disneyland in comparison. But I also think it's left many unprepared.
The Worst Flavor Combination
Altogether, I think this has created a really bad combination of things - overly trusting people, in a curated social bubble, able to share information easier than ever, and where publicly conforming to the group gets you more popular - it's the perfect environment for bullshit to spread, and just as importantly, to be believed. It makes it really hard to speak up, because not only are you walking into the lion's den, but when those lions eat your face, they're encouraged with likes.
For a very silly example - in a recent Kamala rally, she poked fun at some Trump supporters
that were there by saying "I think you're at the wrong rally - you want the
smaller one down the road." (I don't like that response either, but staying on topic) If you follow more conservative media, it is presented as a fact that she was responding to people shouting "Jesus is lord!". Yet if you follow more liberal media,
it is presented as a fact that she was responding to people shouting
"That's a lie!" And honestly, I don't know which it was. But what I do know, that in a crowd of thousands of
people, it is possible, in fact, definite, that many people are
shouting different things. And microphones in different places will
probably pick up whatever narrative you want. I have brought this up on Reddit on both
liberal and conservative groups, and both have pretty strongly attacked me as this even
being a possibility.
Oh my god already then, how do we fix it?
1) Media Literacy
I think, as a start, this should be a subject we teach in school. And given how early many use social media, probably in late grade school/middle school. And I say this knowing that with anything a teacher tells you to do, it is incredibly cool to do the exact opposite. But I do think having these skills is a net positive, even if some choose not to use them. Even if this isn't taught in school, I think it should be encouraged and promoted via peers, commercials, and other media.
2) Voting Reform
This is even a bigger ask - but the US's first-past-the-post system discourages compromise. I honestly think Parliamentary systems are better. Or if we really want to step it up, systems like single transferable vote, or instant runoff, would be a large improvement. There have been attempts, but it could be so much better.
3) Check your Biases
Certainly I have them, and so do you. If I see something bad about my preferred candidate, I'm much more likely to think "Nah that can't be right." On the other hand, if I see bad stories about my not preferred candidate, I'll probably think "Ah yeah that checks out." But I try to push back on that. And it's ridiculously easy to confirm. Literally just open a new tab and search for it. Usually, the first result or two will give you the full(er) story. Like, remember this dumb thing recently, where Trump said McDonald's has no record of Kamala ever working there? Which is technically true, but it's
lacking a lot of important context. (And seriously, who would lie about that? And now Trump's making french fries? But people are dunking on him for not making them well? This is seriously the dumbest timeline). Anyway, I think if you want to be informed, you need to fully understand the situation. I'd argue it's just about as fast to check as it is to open the clickbait.
4) Go Against the Grain
It seems weird I have to say this to Americans, because that used to be encouraged. But despite me saying a few paragraphs ago how speaking up is like going into the lion's den, I push myself to when there is blatant misinformation or a lack of context. And I say this knowing that people will probably respond with not-nice things. But I also have played Call of Duty with 13-year olds. You got nothin' on them.
5) Be Nice, and Give Others an Out
I think there's a lot of drive on the internet to "slam" someone's views, so you can "win" and look cool. But this is an absolutely terrible way to change someone's mind. Like, just play that scenario out - if someone tells you their opinion, and you disagree, it would be foolish to start out with "You're such an idiot - this is better because A B C." Because even if that person thinks you made a great point, they have to admit they were wrong and, by your words, an idiot as well.
Similarly, lets say that you have seen unambiguous evidence that your preferred candidate did something you do not like. The easiest thing to do is to just be quiet about it. Because if you come out and criticize, you're a "traitor" to the group. But more importantly, you have to admit, even a little, that your candidate isn't perfect and you were wrong. And that's really hard for people to do. So whenever I comment, I try to give even the smallest something to let the other person an "out", or permission to be wrong. Something like "I'm sure he/she didn't mean this, but that would be concerning, right?" Or even throwing myself under the bus, fictitiously or not, by admitting that I was wrong myself - because then it's easier for others to do the same.
So, here we are. A week out from the election, and it seems like a coin flip at this point. But what I want to end with, is that we're on the same team. The other candidate doesn't have to lose for you to win. It's possible for everyone to win by working together. And while hopefully even a small part of this made sense, all I can probably do now is to
encourage you to vote. I know the people I know are good people. So if you really consider who is the most empathetic and the moral choice, I think you'll make the right decision.