Perhaps the most distressing part of this election to me is the fallout, with regards to how people are approaching one another. While emotions are expected to be an ever-present part of politics and the discussion thereof, I do not think it is either appropriate or healthy to allow emotions to overwhelm and eliminate mature, reasonable, non-attacking conversation. It is my opinion that the latter is the case amongst many people browsing the blogs that I read with regularity.
This election has polarized people like never before. It all started quite a while ago, but it reached a critical point in 2000. With an election being so terribly close, the public immediately began to take an interest in the following election season. The Democratic Party's 2004 primary campaign was wild enough and so unpredictable that it further focussed people on that upcoming election day. As the focussed shifted almost overnight from Howard Dean to John Kerry, people began to immediately hop onto the anyone-but-Bush campaign.
With money pouring in from all sides, this election had nowhere to go but to an all-out, knock-down-drag-out slugfest. This fact was known and realized by most Americans, and it fueled not only the financial coffers of both bparties but also the emotional attachment to the cause and the passion to defeat the opposition. This is typical in any election, but this year it was much more focussed, much more pointed and much more personal.
As Americans, we are used to politicians attacking one another in public. We have grown accustomed to the endless negative add campaigns, even though most people despise them. We choose sides and quickly learn the "dirt" on the other side and spread that oftentimes more effectively than we actually spread factual information about our candidate or cause. So we spend a ton of time, and possibly money, throwing around negativity and putting down anything and everything the other side says or does.
However, I believe that this year this election turned the finger pointing from the supporter to the opposing politican and made it one supporter pointing at the other supporter. In that situation, the party lines disappear quickly and people take attacks very personally. It's no longer a private citizen criticizing and denigrating a public, political figure or party, but it has become one citizen attacking another.
Is it wrong to be emotionally tied to a campaign?
Absolutely not, that is a large part of what drives the political process.
Is it wrong that we accept the negative campaigns without much public outcry?
I think so, but others may disagree.
Is it wrong to make generalizations that attack the citizens on the opposing side?
I would humbly submit that, yes, I believe this is wrong.
Do not question the patriotism of the person voting opposite of you.
Do not question the national pride of the person on the other side.
The fact that they voted more than proves how much they love this country.
Don't assume that the other people voted in complete ignorance.
While it is true that some people do vote completely blindly, it is not right to categorize someone with a different view of things as being less intelligent or less motivated by events in the past. Just because they voted differently doesn't make them a moron, imbecile, nerd, pansy, mentally retarded or any other derogatory comment you might be able to come up with.
When it all is said and done, we have more in common than we have in differences.
Even though that may be hard to see in an election year.
Who Am I?
I'm the same as you - I'm an American.
I'm proud to live in a nation where we can express ourselves through voting, and through our words and actions freely. However, I ask you to keep in mind that the person on the other side of the party line is still very much a human being like you, and they don't deserve to be either kicked while they are down, or punched while they are celebrating.
No comments:
Post a Comment