The Roots of Our Deep Political Divide

Column by Douglas Young.

Exclusive to STR

There are many culprits for why so many Americans of different political persuasiontoday have trouble maintaining or even starting a rational dialogue on controversial topics without angry emotion and name-calling soon taking over 
Before TV, we were a far more literate society where folks read much more and thought in a more rational, linear manner. But TV is arguably a much more emotional medium. A long time ago, people asked, "What do you think?" about an issue. Now it's "How do you feel about that?" 
The rise of 24/7 cable news networks bringing on a never-ending news cycle, and the ascendancy of openly biased journalism, have further politicized us. So have all the biased talk radio and Internet news sites. These new media love to frighten folks into watching, listening to, or reading them. Everything becomes "a crisis" requiring immediate action. This creates far more fear and even panic -- look how easily the press and politicians exploited the COVID virus.
When I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s, everyone read the same local newspaper, which was usually unbiased except on the editorial pages. We all watched the same 30-minute CBS, NBC, or ABC newscast, and there was virtually no talk radio and no Internet. Now conservatives read The Wall Street Journal, listen to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, read National Review, and watch Fox News. Liberals read The New York Times, listen to NPR, read Slate online, and watch CNN or MSNBC. So the two sides have vastly different views of the world since they literally do not share remotely the same informational or opinion sources.
The rise of identity politics has enormously exacerbated our divide. So many politicians, professors, teachers, journalists, ministers, moviemakers, and political activists have worked so hard in recent decades to condition folks to stop identifying as individuals, fellow believers, or Americans who should independently think for themselves. Instead, people -- especially students -- have been indoctrinated to have a deep emotional identification with their race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, and/or socio-economic class. We've been trained to think in terms of groups instead of individuals, and taught equity trumps freedom and personal merit. Identity politics teaches folks to be hyper-vigilant to any perceived sleight against their group. Context, nuance, and circumstances take a distant second place to the primacy of group solidarity and feelings.
The rise of cultural Marxism in many colleges and K-12 schools has also caused way more Americans to see the world as divided between oppressors and the oppressed. It's an expansion of Marx's economic class conflict to so many other areas of society: white v. non-white, male v. female, straight v. gay, religious v. secular, First World v. Third World, haves v. have-nots, etc.
So conservatives and liberals now choose to lead far more ideologically segregated lives than ever before. We have different family structures and religious orientations, and live in different neighborhoods, cities, and states. We no longer even watch the same entertainment shows or choose the same college majors or careers. So Republicans and Democrats no longer date or marry each other remotely as much. Thus, there are likely far fewer families having healthy political discussions between family members with different views who still love each other.
With all this voluntary segregation based on ideological/religious/cultural orientations, no wonder there's tension when we're thrown together in the same setting to discuss controversial issues. There really is a cultural war in America. This helps explain why there's such a battle royal fought over which history and other textbooks will be used in the schools (the 1619 Project v. the 1776 Project) since they present opposite views of our nation, world, and life in general.
Dennis Prager argues we also have too many affluent, secular, and bored Americans with too much free time in search of meaning. So they eagerly latch onto political causes. Their religion is politics, their faith is their political ideology, and their church is their political party.
We can’t even agree on what words to use. This is why there's always a fight over the terms of each debate: "pro-choice" (who could possibly oppose this?) v. "pro-life" (well, who could possibly oppose that?). Is someone “pro-Second Amendment” or a “pro-gun fanatic”? Is another “pro-illegal alien” or “pro-undocumented immigrant”? A case can be made that whichever side controls the terms of the debate will prevail in public opinion and, ultimately, policy. 
With Big Tech now censoring political expression, and many political elites demanding the destruction of major and minor news outlets on ideological grounds, for the first time in my 59 years enormous numbers of Americans even fear losing their basic First Amendment rights.
And, with government intruding into our lives far more than ever before, today’s chasm between our major parties means there really is a massive amount at stake in national elections. 
Your rating: None Average: 9 (1 vote)
Douglas Young's picture
Columns on STR: 8


jd-in-georgia's picture

Professor Young, you’ve provided a rather objective observation on our country’s political climate. Because you avoided praising or condemning any of the opposing sides for any of these issues, aren’t you afraid of losing your job? After all, you are a college professor. The idea of presenting these issues in a format which might force a person to engage in the daunting task of actual thought could be problematic to these youngsters who are so used to being told what to think. Of course, by telling a student that, “it might not kill you to think,” it may be perceived as a personal threat. Perhaps you could say, “it will not hurt you to think.” That might have the student running for the nearest on-campus safe-space, but at least you should still have your job. By the way, this is sarcasm. Some folks might not understand sarcasm because sarcasm is a result of an active mind. I better stop because sarcasm is likely to be canceled.