There is a clear problem in American democracy where the two different sides have become increasingly polarized over time. Recently, Trevor Noah of the Daily Show interviewed what could be considered his foil, Tomi Lahren. Tomi Lahren from the Blaze hosts a conservative internet talk show that often goes viral on social media. Some considered Trevor having Tomi on the show as legitimizing her and her views. To those, I say her views are not legitimate to you, but they are to many who are sharing her on social media. She is already legitimate, she is already mainstream.

The interview had many inquisitive moments. These moments ranged from views on racism to Donald Trump to Black Lives Matter. But most importantly was the undertone to all those points and when Trevor showed Tomi was using two sets of logic. It was not that Tomi was blatantly illogical like most liberals treat conservatives. She is quite logical, just logically inconsistent. Tomi applies one set of logic to the opposing team and another to the team she identifies herself with. She is certainly not the only person who does this. Many of us do. I do, or at least found myself doing so after watching the interview. This may very well be one of the contributing factors to a divided nation. It is as if we have two parts of our brain, one that supports our team endlessly, and another that hates and despises anything the other team does. It's incredible how reliable it is. Trevor Noah previously mentioned the ideological problem with the two teams in America, where every American supports their team. There is a clear problem with fake news exciting these two different parts of our own brains. Furthermore, this is a tribal urge, to love your tribe and hate others. So it's no surprise that two different logical systems developed in every American's political mindset.

Some examples of this dual logic can be useful at this point. Recently, Jordan Klepper on Fingering the Pulse interviewed an adamant Trump supporter. Klepper said, "The Goldmann Sachs guy, I mean that is the swamp we want to drain, and also make Secretary of the Treasury," to which the man replied with, "Don't you want the most qualified person, even if it might be a so called swamp member, lobbyist or so on? Is that not the best thing to do?" Somehow the man had yet to realize he should have voted for Hillary Clinton under that logic. Klepper replied, letting him know that that was Clinton's entire campaign. But there is the problem – the man's logical path here is the same as with any other job. Qualification is of prime importance, regardless of a swampy background. Yet he elected a businessman with little political background, virtually the least qualified president in history. Because when it comes to his own side, the qualification argument comes into play, just as it did for the democrats who voted Clinton in November. The two different sides, left and right, can hold the same logical paths, yet come to different conclusions, due to the fact that the application of different logical pathways is decided by whether you are talking about an opponent or not.

Trevor Noah catches Tomi Lahren doing this and does not miss the chance to bring it up. Tomi brings up a point that there was a shooter in Dallas, Texas who claimed he was inspired by Black Lives Matter. Tomi claimed that that was evidence that Black Lives Matter was a violent protesting group. Trevor responded with, "Just because you say the thing [the shooter claiming he was part of BLM] does not mean that is what the thing stands for, because you're the same person who on your show argued that just because Donald Trump has supporters from the KKK does not mean he is in the KKK." Here, the logical pathway is that if a member of a group, or someone who claims to be in a group, does something or says something, it means that that is what the group stands for. The alternate logic is that just because one person who claims to be a member of that group did something does not mean that they represent the views of the group as a whole. Regardless of which of the two logical pathways are better, Tomi changed hers depending on wether it was pro-Trump or anti-Black Lives Matter. Had she held a logical consistency, she would have held very different views of either Donald Trump or BLM – either that Donald Trump is racist or that BLM is a non-violent group respectively. Conversely, she proved that Donald Trump is a racist if Black Lives Matter is a violent group since they adhere to the same logical consistency.

Trevor again, only seconds later, showed her logical flip yet again. She claimed that a few members of the BLM movement are violent, all members are violent. So Trevor asked her, "Under that logic, are the police not racist? In many cities, you look what happened in Baltimore, in New York, in the case of Walter Scott. They have been shown to treat black people unfairly. Are they not racist? Because that is the same logic you are using." Tomi said it was not the same logic. But it is. The logic is, if there are a number of instances showing a common occurrence of motives under a group, then that must be a part of the group's purpose, even if not officially stated. Under that logic, BLM would be a violent group, and the police would be racist. But Tomi flipped her logic, as policing and Blue Lives Matter is a conservative movement and BLM is a liberal one. Again, regardless of whether the logic is sound, she changes her logic depending on whether it is applied to a liberal or a conservative.

These are certainly not the only examples of this dual logical system, and by no means is it exclusive to conservative voters. Those were just the examples readily available. The point is not that liberals or conservatives are illogical – rather, that this political divisiveness and reliance on what team one is on drives our logical consistency, whereas logical consistency should be subordinate to nothing as logic is the prime tool of the human brain. Furthermore, if we held a logical consistency within ourselves, perhaps we could achieve far more progress. Tomi Lahren does not follow logical consistency, and neither does Trevor Noah at times, or even Jon Stewart, or so on. But you should. We all should. It is important to our democracy to stop this madness. Two sides exist because we use two different logical systems at will. My advice, now that the election is over, is to write down a set of logical rules you adhere to or begin writing them. When the time comes to elect a new president, look at those rules you wrote and do not flip your logic just because they are not on your side. Though perhaps not the best solution, it is the first step to returning to normalcy in the US democracy, and ending this ridiculous political divisiveness. I do recommend watching the interview between Tomi and Trevor here: