RED vs BLUE

Rational thinking seems to be hard to come by in modern day America. This is mainly because as humans we are inherently emotional creatures. Emotion is a phenomenal thing, as it allows us to form friendships and learn from our past shortcomings. Most importantly, emotion is the core element within our souls that drives us forward during times of hardship. It is the voice in our head that gives us hope. However, when we move through life making our decisions based solely on emotion, we are incapable of forming truly rational opinions. Our decision making then suffers that same fate.

Let’s apply the above concept to our current state of American politics. In order to do this, we’ll need to put our political bias aside and recognize the following five basic truths:

If we accept the previous five points to be true, then who is to blame for the political polarization of our country? The answer is three groups of people. Below they are presented in the order of which the polarization occurs:

Point 3 is the most intriguing, but in order to understand why we must put ourselves at blame we must start by breaking down the first two points as well.

They typically aren’t experts on the economy, foreign trade, or crime prevention. The good politicians (those who get elected) are however experts at working a crowd. Both Republican and Democrat politicians form their stance on a topic based on appealing to the emotions of the American voter. Republicans typically by instilling fear into their base, and Democrats with empathy. However, both of these emotions are often interchangeable between parties in an attempt to cast out their opponent.

When looking at the gun control debate, the standard liberal platform is “Less guns equates to less violence”. The argument is then made that in countries like Australia, gun violence has dropped significantly since the mandatory gun buy-back of 1996. Nothing else needs to be said after this statement, and usually nothing is. That one simple fact, that is indeed true, is enough to ignite applause at a campaign rally, ensuring that the politician speaking will be seen as a common sense hero who cares deeply for human lives (empathy). No explanation of this fact is needed for the average voter. “I am a good person. Therefore if a candidate says something that I perceive to be true, they must be a good person as well.”

The standard conservative platform on guns is “More guns equates to less violence.” Their reasoning is that an individual carrying a gun with malicious intent is less likely to use that weapon if they know they may be fired back upon. The conservative base is then fired up with claims such as, “Democrats want to take away your freedom of self-defense.” (fear).

So which of these platforms is true? According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australia’s official data collection website, less guns does mean less GUN violence but not necessarily less violence crime. Sexual assault in that country has been on the rise for six consecutive years, and gun-involved homicides account for just 14 percent of the total homicide figure. Homicide rates in Australia have indeed decreased, however when looking at what are considered to be civilized nations, homicide rates have decreased over the decades steadily in all of them. This includes countries with both strict and less-strict gun laws, the U.S. is included here as well.

This must mean that more guns equates to less violence then correct? No. There is no evidence to suggest that integrating firearms into a society will decrease the amount of violent crime, only that violent crime does appear to increase when firearms are removed. The problem with relating these numbers from other nations to our own is that there is no standard for reporting crime on the international stage. In other words, each country reports its crime data differently from another which inevitably skews the data when cross-comparing. What we do know to be fact in our own nation though, is that 500,000 gun crimes a year in America are committed with legally purchased firearms which were stolen from the legal owner prior to the crime taking place. We also know that 8 percent of gun shops in our country are unlicensed, and sell firearms to customers without proper background checks. This is a federal crime. Those guns then become responsible for 60,000 gun crimes in the states. Removing guns or adding guns does not tackle the issue of our federal laws being broken involving firearms, which then leads to gun related crime. It also does not account for black market purchases of firearms, which is nearly impossible to trace. When comparing all relevant data, it is impossible to find a conclusion that supports either the Democratic platform, or the Republican platform on guns. Every study contradicts one another.

The majority of these facts, at least in major detail, are not discussed by politicians at campaign rallies, national debates, or television interviews. This in turn leaves the American voter with no real facts or not enough facts to interpret, so instead they must use only emotion to draw their conclusions. What we hear candidates say instead are simply what the average voter wants to hear:

These statements are both true, but offer no real solution. They simply sound good and the majority of a voter base will agree, which turns into a vote for that candidate. A particular candidate will then try to appeal to the opposing party’s base with emotion driven statements such as:

Statements like those above divide us. Democrats become angry with Republicans and dehumanize them as morally inferior. Republicans become angry with Democrats and dehumanize them as unpatriotic. No one wants to see children die and no one wants to be stripped of their rights, but how do we solve the these two problems? Statistical data is extremely complex when researched properly, typically forcing the researcher to ask new questions upon finding an answer to the first. Therefore politicians resort to promoting policy founded upon basic ideology, which may fix one part of the issue for any given topic yet create a new issue somewhere else. In turn, nothing is actually accomplished, yet on the surface it appears to the American people that progress is being made.

Why do we allow our leaders to get away with polarizing our citizens? We, as citizens, are told to trust those who give our leaders a platform on which to reach us.

The core goal of any business is to create a profit on what it is that business sells. The media industry is just that, a business. News reporting within the media industry therefore is subject to that same goal. The owner of a shoe retailer must constantly supply the demand of his or her product to their customers in order to create a profit, the same way a network news company must constantly supply the demand of their content to its viewers to create a profit. Where along the line news became less-fact oriented and more a misrepresentation of those facts is up for debate. There is a great documentary that touches on this question titled, “Best Of Enemies”, which details the first entertainment driven newscast formulated to boost the ratings of ABC news in the midst of an election.

Over time, news media has fallen into using the same technique to elevate ratings and profit that politicians use to elevate support and gain votes. Telling the people what they want to hear. If our shoe retailer creates and distributes a product that the people don’t want, the company will inevitably lose clientele, profit, and eventually go out of business (the demand for what the customers want is not being met by the supply of what is being offered) unless they re-form their business model around the customers needs. The same fact is true for our national news. If we trace back the beginning of entertainment-based newscasting to the mid-late 1960’s, as the documentary I mentioned previously does, this may explain why much of our mainstream news until the founding of Fox News in 1996 was presented from a liberal angle.

The 1960’s were a time at which our nation was changing rapidly with civil rights movements across the country. News broadcasts which promoted those rights evoked empathy from its viewers, vanquishing fear from the majority of Americans who may have had prejudices. This is by no means a bad thing, in fact it is what was needed most. However, the concept of supplying the viewers demands with a supply of what was wanted continued long after most Americans relinquished their discriminatory practices. What we were then left with was a one sided approach to most news broadcasts. Each liberal station competing with each other for ratings yet mainly preaching the same side of the argument, since that argument is what it was believed the people wanted. This however opened up a platform for conservative based news broadcasting in the mid 1990’s.

The business idea behind the founding of Fox News was again the core concept of supply and demand. This time to supply Americans with an alternative angle of news for which their demands were not being met by other major networks. The concept being that an untapped, profitable clientele was available to the business world yet not being utilized. Overtime since their inception, Fox eventually became tremendous competition for other competing news networks such as CNN and NBC. Presently we’re left with the following:

In order for the people or groups in the points above to achieve their goals, facts are misrepresented or completely left out of an argument in order for that argument to work in that group’s favor. Why wouldn’t they do this? They’re giving the people what they want, which is how one wins in both Politics and business alike. Politicians misinform and cater in order to get elected, while news outlets misinform and cater to grow a business. These two groups of people thrive on each other. Politicians provide the material of which they want to be presented to the American people, and news media then presents it to the American people. Whether or not what each group is saying is accurate doesn’t matter, their causes grow enabling them to achieve personal gain on the backs of American citizens.

In an attempt to gain viewers from an opposition angle news network (the same way our shoe retailer may try to gain clientele from a competing company), programs will attempt to show that their side is the right side, or “better” so to speak. This further angers Americans who blindly believe what the people they trust tell them, driving citizens with opposing views further apart from each other. In terms of a business like the shoe retailer, people aren’t going to be divided with one another for shopping at a different store. The shoes one person wears does not effect the life of another person. However, in terms of politics people inevitably will become polarized. The choices our political leaders make will indeed effect the life of all people in our nation. This is why our current state of political news is detrimental to our country.

Why are we, the American people, to blame for our own division? We trust other people, so called “experts”, to tell us what is true rather than finding out what is true on our own. Let’s take politics out of the equation for a second and reflect on our own decision making in life.

When we make decisions in our own lives for the betterment of our own futures, we need all available information combined with all of our emotions in order to make the proper choice moving forward. Choices that result in a negative outcome, are typically due to the fact that we did not take into account every piece of information available to us before making a particular decision. This is fine, it is life, and mistakes will inevitably occur. The idea is that we learn from those mistakes moving forward. Most importantly, we know what is best for ourselves.

Policy put forth by our politicians, then promoted by news organizations, affects our own lives. If we know what is best for ourselves in life, why do we let a third party decide what is best for our country and those of us who live in it? Why do we let these two groups pin us against one another when their ultimate goal is simply to win (politician), or grow (business).

The answer is fairly simple. We the people are willing to weigh the options thoroughly of a career change, starting a family, buying a home; yet we are unwilling to thoroughly research information being presented to us as fact in politics. Instead, we find a source that we trust due to the similar ideology they hold compared to ours, and believe what they say to be true because we agree with them. In other words, we rely on third party information to give us our facts that we are perfectly capable of researching ourselves. The third parties with whom we disagree we then look down upon, including the American citizens who share that same outlook. Each opposing party is “fighting for the greater good”, therefore leading us to believe anyone who agrees with us is a friend, while anyone who disagrees with us becomes foe. Now we have an environment in which we are unable to get along with those who share opposite views. “I am a good person, therefore anyone who disagrees with my opinions must be a bad person.”

How do we combat this? It involves consuming some of our free time with diligent fact checking. I explain how to do this properly here:

Only after true research and comprehension of a given political topic can we truly make rational educated decisions on who we elect to represent us in this great nation. It is our responsibility to hold both the left and right accountable for the information they distribute to us, as much as it is our own responsibility to respect one another regardless of our political diversity. The five basic truths mentioned in the beginning of this piece are the foundation of what we must use to bind us together in unity:

In order for Politicians and national news outlets to change their approach, we the people must change what it is that we ask for:

WHAT WE WANT TO HEAR vs. WHAT WE NEED TO HEAR

When the citizen’s demands change, the supply will then follow suit.

Related posts:

The idea for this list sprouted on International Women’s Day, when I began researching for “lists of women to follow in UX writing and content design.” To my alarm, there weren’t any lists devoted…

How authentic are you? How true are you to yourself? How often do you cheat on yourself? We cheat ourselves every single time we adjust our words and our behavior to meet someone else’s expectations…

The architect I chose was john hejduk, and the technique that I choose is ‘a catalog of architecture monster’. this idea is from the book ‘Victim’. For him, architecture is no longer a simple…