Bridging the political divide. Graphic by Mani Esmali / Graphics Center
I grow doubtful that the rise in political violence and hate speech has absolutely nothing to do with a rise in extremism. The ease of saying whatever comes to mind has transcended the confines of online trolling and become a genuine hatred for real people. However, it’s more complicated than just an effect of hiding behind online anonymity. Politicians and political influencers alike have quickly moved towards using divisiveness as a tool to promote fear in voters. Whether it’s just the fear of backlash from our own parties that bars us from change, or it’s simply an unwillingness to be flexible, the effects remain the same: a nation indivisible becomes divided.
A considerable number of people fail to recognize this growing division; the ones who do see it take comfort in believing that they are not a contributing factor. It’s always easier to believe that the other side will have the epiphany that wakes them from their political blindness. With all the tools we have at our disposal, preserving one philosophy should be nearly impossible, but we continue to do it.
When writing this article, I hoped to find students who could offer diverse beliefs and political opinions, precisely to highlight the similarities and contrast the differences among these various perspectives. It was difficult to find a single student who aligned themselves with the minority on campus, someone who would self-characterize as “right-leaning”. I wanted to draw attention to this observation, not just as anecdotal evidence, but as a concern for a developing mentality on our campus. The further we progress into spaces of hatred for different beliefs, the less likely people will be to share a perspective other than the one we have deemed correct.
However, the overuse of “It’s my First Amendment right” as a means to validate sharing hatred and bigotry, in any space, is certainly not a just cause to defend. Where do we, as American students pursuing higher education, draw the line between active participation in First Amendment rights and outright hate?
First-year Public Health Major, Carol Zhang, provided an interesting insight on the topic, “Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that it doesn’t come [without] freedom of consequences. You have the right to talk, but you don’t have the right to avoid people talking back.”
Zhang’s self-described political beliefs also warranted a more extensive conversation about what it means to confine yourself to one ideological term. “People don’t realize that you can be both. I do think that polarization is a strong issue because it’s gotten to the point where people refuse to listen to the other side. That goes for Republicans and liberals. People need to understand not everyone is against you,” Zhang said.
When we look intrinsically and determine our own beliefs, I am keenly aware of the fact that many of us do not have prefrontal cortexes that are entirely developed. We lack the ability to be our most rational and logical selves and, therefore, cannot honestly claim we will never change or develop our own beliefs. It’s important to acknowledge this fact when we address our peers and any individuals with opposing views. While I don’t disagree that some beliefs are innately objective and are unlikely to change or develop in any substantial way, that certainly doesn’t validate expressing violence towards a person whose only crime is lacking empathy.
“Polarization can result in the creation of an ‘us vs. them’ mentality, where ‘they’ are seen as an enemy threatening the integrity of the nation — leading to the dehumanization of people on the other side of the political divide,” politics Professor Elisabeth Friedman said, when questioned about what could have led to the normalization of political violence, “That’s a very powerful force, dehumanization. Once people aren’t seen as human, committing violence against them is more easily rationalized.”
The idea that we lose sight of one another’s humanity to justify our actions and words is more than just a sad truth of the spaces political conversations exist in; it’s a terrifying reality of the world we live in. We learn about dehumanization in class to explain why governments and individuals have committed horrific crimes, decimated entire cities and wiped out racial groups. Those events and ideas didn’t stem from someone waking up and ultimately concluding they dreamed of being the super villain of history books. It happens gradually, small instances in which people are no longer seen as human, but as statistical numbers that we have concluded share the same ideas, preach the same beliefs and idealize the same world.
While it’s incredibly unlikely that our own campus has managed to reach such a stage of polarization, it’s important to acknowledge that our words matter. The way we speak about other human beings matters. We live and breathe the same air, and we care deeply about the things that matter to us. Why must we decide that the things we care about must outweigh the things someone else cares about?
I leave you with this: challenge yourself to see your ideas as something other than correct. Justify a side you don’t agree with, not to change your beliefs, but to understand why someone else might believe differently. I don’t wish to be unreasonable and demand world peace in just a few paragraphs, but if just a handful of people resonate with what I write, it will have been worthwhile.
