It seems like every day when we go on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, we see a plethora of political views from just about everyone. Whether it is in the form of light hearted memes, serious memes people scoff at, ambiguous quotes, or a blatant novel-long post about the individual's disposition on whatever topic is hot at the moment (Personally, I am a fan of the novel-long post).
With this election specifically this past year, we are seeing more and more volatile acts and differing opinions from all age groups. This election has given ammo of epic proportions to the public for all types of ridicule and hate to spread around. Granted, this election does taint our normally imperative job as citizens to scrutinize, learn and analyze the politics of the candidates in order to make a critical judgement pertaining to the future of our people and country due to the trifecta of that is Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
With these three vastly variegated individuals our population has been split up into three groups who are seemingly at war with each other now. The news and media are always covering the attacks Bernie voters put on Trump followers walking down the street, the malevolent attitude and verbal attacks by Trump followers on people of different races and culture, and Hillary's followers who just talk about how she is a woman in politics, somehow ignore her contradictions, and then speak ill of the other two candidates. Generally, there are pros and cons pertaining to each idea that the politicians have but this time around I find that ratio to be a bit lackluster. The cons outweigh the pros tenfold and the ideas that are considered "pros" by the respective followers of each candidate are in reality a bit unrealistic for the time frame that they demand it in. This is only due to the natural inclination as humans to want a result instantly in times of need, however, that's a different conversation...
Our population is now completely separated into three viewpoints and seemingly unwilling to compromise, listen and have a civil discussion.
There are a lot of opinions out there about every topic there is in the world and people will fight for what they believe in. This is absolutely essential and necessary in order to be a true human being. We do have to fight for what we believe in overall. However, we cannot get to the "overall" without some dialectic taking place. Presently, we do not have the ability of the dialectic anymore. We just keep our mind narrow, stick to our guns, stay stubborn, and expect results because the other people are suppose to recant their opinions and see it our way. That's not happening. Too many people think that way today. So we just end up going around in circles not getting anything accomplished and just adding fuel to the hatred.
The dialectic is a simple equation: Thesis + Antithesis= Synthesis. In laymen's terms, the opinion you give (thesis) is met by a differing opinion (antithesis) from another individual, and when properly discussed with active listening it creates a new viewpoint/compromise (synthesis). Now, I understand this is not an easy concept to put into motion, in fact it is near impossible to successfully pull off because it requires that both parties who wish to communicate to participate. This participation requires people to put the act of understanding and broadening one's knowledge first, before being "right" in an argument. This is a difficult task to complete because of how it effects the ego and pride of the individual; individuals have to put aside pride and attain humility in order to carry this action out. When this action is carried out, both people leave with a newfound understanding of one another, they can respectfully disagree, they can amicably walk away from each other, they can even compromise on an issue to where they are both satisfied but both didn't completely get their way.
There is a vast array of choices when using the dialectic; it is up to the two individuals once they have synthesized.
From what I have seen, this concept is not valid among our public. It is not a valid or serious approach for communication in politics because all politics is now a days is arguing about your point until someone finally agrees with you. That is not politics. Politics is leadership for the people. Politics is putting the whole community of a nation first before the leader. Politics is compromise between leaders. Politics was established so there could be representatives of a multitude of people united. A politician's job is to allow the people to have a voice in the nation that they are apart of. Politicians need to treat their job as the delicate, imperative, machine that it is in a community. Politicians are supposed to use rhetoric to transcend the people who look up to them for leadership into the sublime so that they may feel trust and feel understood. The whole point of politics, government, and politicians was so there could be a feeling of security in their community, so that they can be protected from crime and harm.
The election I see is not politics. I am seeing children throw daggers at each other on a stage for votes, I am seeing "adults" who "know" politics lie, rally, promote hate, all just to get elected. This is the Machiavellian tactic of politics, it is not true, it is not honest, however there are multiple facets to political tactics and some would argue that this is true politics. This is not true politics to me and it saddens me that this is where we are as a country. We are divided, not united. There is no "we" there is only "them", "they", or "me" now. Our country's people have gotten to the point where even reason doesn't make sense. There is no pacifying, there is no listening, there is no synthesis. There isn't even any acknowledgement of these things being a valid solution. We are too wrapped up in our own minds now.
I see young people my age hating each other, arguing with professors, adults, peers as they are speaking as if they know everything about politics, tax reforms, the economy, the government, rhetoric, etc. Perhaps some of my peers do know a few things, perhaps they have already lived an adult's life, You can never tell. Personally, I do not talk of politics because I do not know enough about them. I realize I do not know the whole history, what has worked and what hasn't, I have not fully studied the tactics or methods, I have not studied the constitution enough to effectively analyze its meaning and then apply it to the situations that are being discussed. I have not endured "real life" yet as a fully functioning adult. I do not have that experience. I still have years of learning and experience to attain before I speak like I know what I am speaking about. I do have my own views of course, I do have a sense of right and wrong, and we develop these from our personal experiences, lessons we've learned, and observations, and yes this is what makes us individuals. With that, we can either hate those differences in one another or actively listen and learn about those differences. Either way, I refuse to use my views as tools for negativity. I refuse to argue my personal views just to have someone interrupt them without them actively listening. It is not constructive, it not conducive to progress, nor is it communicative. But then again, I am 20 years old and don't know a lot.
I hope that we can all come together once again one day. I hope we can delve into the deeper meaning of issues, put aside right from wrong. I hope that we get politicians who actually care about the people. I hope for America's future.
