Social media has the power to alternate from amazing to
annoying in literally a matter of seconds depending on what is going on in the
world. I love social media; there is no
question that I am addicted to it and I can admit that. Facebook was originally great to keep in
touch with older friends and I joined twitter specifically to obtain sports
news as it was released.
Social media transforms daily though, and so has my use of
it. Facebook became more of a medium to “stalk”
older friends rather than actually interact with them. It also became a forum to voice your opinions
on anything and everything to your friends.
I try to use it just for sports and things I find humorous, but as we
hit election time, politics is easily the biggest component of it for most
people. While this is annoying, I am at
least connected to all of my facebook friends by a major interaction – we have
met in real life (at least with 99% of my fb friends), conversed, and have some
sort of shared experience. Therefore, I
know what to expect around election time, and facebook includes a handy “Hide”
button if I get really irritated.
 |
| Oh Twitter, what have I lost you to?! |
Twitter is a much more difficult medium to manage. You follow people for a specific reason, but
events like an election transform everyone’s twitter accounts into something
you’ve never seen before. I first joined
twitter looking for sports news, then made an effort to provide sports news,
and continued on with it to the point that I have made friends over
twitter. This led to the creation of a 2nd
twitter account so the people who followed me for sports have the option to
follow my other interests and personal life if they so choose, but they are not
forced to deal with it if they only want sports. This is not how twitter usually works though.
The norm is one twitter account = every thought/feeling/piece
of information possible from one person.
It’s often wonderful until you start reading about the side of someone
that you don’t want to know about, don’t care about, and never want to hear
about again. For me, that side always
involves politics.
I don’t hate politics; I am just indifferent to other people’s
views of it. Your tweets will not change
my mind about my thoughts and values.
Your facebook statuses will not change my mind either. A well written blog, article, or report may
change how I think and feel, but surely not character-limited messages.
Beyond that, many political posts on social media are
inflammatory. Let’s face it, we all are
on various social media sites to get involved in discussions, or get replies/favorites/retweets/likes/shares/etc. You don’t put a thought out there without
wanting someone to read it and react to it.
As such, election time appears to be perfect for people to throw out any
sort of inflammatory statement to either be lauded as intelligent or strike up
an argument.
 |
| We're all doomed. |
While I’m indifferent to how other people view politics, I
can’t help but get irritated with many of the comments I see from supporters of
either side. Politics is no longer an
intellectual debate about what is best for the country. Politics is a dirty, hair-pulling, slap fight
where one side has to be better than the other side and also must be right all
of the time. Often, what starts as an
intellectual debate will turn into finger pointing about how the other side has
screwed up or is wrong about something.
These are not debates about making the country better. Sure, the debates are founded upon that
principle and begin that way, but they devolve quickly into my candidate is
better than yours, my party is better than yours, and now I’m better than you
too because you’re an idiot just like your party and your candidate. This is especially rampant on twitter where
thoughts are limited to 140 characters.
Even when people aren’t arguing against each other on twitter, there are
a plethora of subtweets created for the other side.
I realize not everyone is like this, there are many bright
individual who do not act like this, but they also don’t spark debate nearly as
frequently as well…so all of you are absolved.
Now a slight transition off of social media and just to my view on
politics if you care:
 |
| This is not about Obama vs. Romney. This is about Obama OR Romney. |
This country often takes a sports atmosphere to
politics. It’s about winning and soundly
defeating the opposition. It’s about
being better than the other side. It’s
about why this side is better than that side.
The problem is, running the country is not a sport. When one side wins,
they still need to care about the other side and the other side does not go
home. The operation of the United States
is not better off because one side won, or the other side one. It may trend better based on a certain
candidate or party at any given time, but that is not what makes the country
better. The US improves as all political
parties and all political beliefs meld into policies and actions that benefit
the country as a whole. No one is right
all of the time and no one is wrong all of the time. This is a concept that is lost in politics
though, and it is why I don’t get involved in political debates and why I don’t
care about what anyone else may think about politics.
Back in 12th grade, my AP American Government teacher
had us fill out our voter registration forms in class before we turned 18. As we filled them out, she left us with one
lesson: Don’t truly define yourself by
any affiliation because you will slowly give away your independent thought on various
topics to that affiliation. I hated that
class but that is a lesson I have held with me.
Don’t label me a democrat or republican, liberal or conservative,
etc. I will be what I need to be when
the country needs that vote – sometimes it will be a liberal agenda, sometimes
it will be a conservative agenda, but I will decide that every 4 years.
Honestly, I don’t truly care who wins this election. I just care that the country improves. In a month or so, I will do my due diligence
research on the candidates and determine who I think will give this country the
best opportunity to improve. At that
point, I will not tell you about it, I will not tell you who I will vote for,
but I will go perform my civic duty and vote on election day. No matter who wins, I will root for that
candidate to fix everything possible about this country within his means. In four years, I will go through the same
cycle.
One thing is for sure, I will never bother you with my
political stances on twitter or facebook.
I will just rant on my blog about how much I can’t stand people who do
that.
PS – I’m well aware that political debate creates new ideas
and fosters intelligent thinking. I am
not opposed to any of that. I’m opposed
to when it is done disrespectfully or in a closed-minded situation…which is
most often the case. Honor everyone’s
views as you would like yours to be treated.
Well Meesh, here's the problem. Sometimes in the world, there are right answers and wrong answers, and the stakes are too high to pretend the wrong answers should be respected. If you genuinely believe that the policies one person promises to institute will be harmful to our country, how do you not argue that they are wrong? If you recognize that millions of people have given their lives for our country, and someone promises to do things that you believe erode the values and opportunities they died for, how do you not passionately defend what they died defending? You seem to take the stance that neither party is different enough that the stakes are possibly so high.
ReplyDeleteYou say that what is best for the country is better when the party's idea are melded together. Well, what makes you so confident that is what's best? I'm not even going to argue with you about which side I think is right or wrong, but I am going to argue with you that it's conceivable that one side IS right, while the other IS wrong, and a melding of the right with the wrong is not the ideal concoction for the future of our country. When our country declared independence and Dickinson was on the side of the Continental Congress that wanted us to remain under British rule, and Adams wanted us to declare independence, was the best outcome that the two sides compromise? Or was one side right and the other wrong? When Hitler took power, another party lost (and was summarily killed). Was the best outcome that they meld together? Clearly I use extreme (and overused) examples, but it's to illustrate the point. A blanket statement that our nation is best if both parties have a say is erroneous, in my opinion.
There is a clear difference in the direction we are choosing for our country going forward. One side believes that we are best served by the government overseeing, regulating, and actively participating in the economy. The other side believes the government should not take a protective role, and instead allow the free markets to operate relatively unchained. These are decidedly differing views on how our country will function, and it's hardly inconceivable that one option is entirely in the best interests of the country, and the other not.
Finally, if you think the disrespectful and vitriolic nature of politics is something new, you're sorely mistaken. A cursory review of political history makes clear it is no more nasty today than it has ever been. Sure, it's disseminated more quickly and openly thanks to new media, but the idea that politics was once just a respectful debate amongst intellectuals is a common misnomer.
First off, I appreciate the read and response. You make some excellent points that I certainly agree with. My post is very generalized on some of the topics you bring up just for the sake of brevity and because my intent was just to get my overall viewpoint across.
DeleteThe stance I attempt to take is one that is down the middle and honestly undecided. I don't mean to say that both parties are right or neither party is wrong, but more that bits and pieces from each party are likely right. There is no question that some policies from [insert party here] are undeniably wrong for the direction of this country, but that does not mean in my opinion that all of their policies are. I will absolutely concede that it's conceivable that one side is right and one side is wrong on certain topics, but I do not believe that is a blanket statement for everything that one side believes.
What I meant by melding was not just a pure compromise with a meet in the middle type attitude. I was speaking more towards the idea of taking the best from each party, or the best from each individual - essentially a synergistic point of view. To your example with declaring independence the best points (hindsight being 20/20) clearly came from Adams and his side, so I would fully support that over a compromise between the parties. I guess my point in the current situation is that it is unlikely that one side is 100% wrong about everything, even though from what I have seen, many people would suggest that.
I wholeheartedly agree that in economical terms, one side may be completely right while the other is completely wrong for what is best for the country. But political platforms are more than just economics, and while I would say the economy is the most important topic right now, different parts of each platform could be for the best.
As to your final point, I'm well aware this is not new to politics. The new aspect I harped on was dealing with social media and largely the nameless faces behind a computer screen. I will disagree on your point that "it is no more nasty today than it has ever been" though. Some people behind those computer screens say an awful lot more than they would ever say in a face to face situation.
Thanks again.
Let me start with the end of your comment. I agree that the commentary from Joe Public has more venom today than in the past. The ability to speak anonymously on the interweb has made for a lot of tough guys that are most likely cowards in real life. I guess when you say politics is no longer an intellectual debate, I think of that as referencing the actual politicians competing with one another, rather than online social media posters.
DeleteI would also agree that I don't believe one party is 100% right, and the other 100% wrong. But I do believe that as far as the general direction one party wants to take our country versus the other is 100% right v. 100% wrong. There are many social issues that are important, but do not fundamentally deal with the role and relationship of government to its citizens, so while I may vary between parties on those issues, I adamantly defend the party I vote for as being right because I am confident that they represent the general view of the role of the government and the judiciary that I believe is necessary for the future success of our nation. To support anything else, in my opinion, would be to support hardships for millions of people in the years to come. If I believe my party will help millions of people lead happier and more dignified lives, and my opponent's party will place them in a position of difficulty and pain, then I feel obligated to stick to my rather close-minded beliefs on those issues. Just as I'm also rather close-minded that 2+2=4.