People that had once posted only Farmville requests and videos of frolicking cats have added to their timelines support and opposition for political philosophies and candidates. Some of these posts are civil. Some less so.
Some conversations that appear in social media legitimately explore issues and logically attack or defend political candidates, but many have observed a decreasing amount of civility in these debates.
Ad hominem attacks label candidates and anyone who might dare to support them stupid, racist, un-American, hateful, or seditious at their best. At their worst, accusations of rape, incest, murder, burglary, treason, or any number of other criminal acts are slung back and forth angrily.
Some claim to legitimately examine both sides of an issue or positions on a candidate when in fact they are guilty of the "straw man" fallacy. They misrepresent the positions or candidates in a manner that makes them weaker, and then attack the vulnerabilities they helped create. To a lesser degree, this is done by representing the best arguments from one position, and pitting them against the weakest arguments from the opposing view.
The vile nature of the political atmosphere leaves many feeling disenchanted with the American government; after all... whoever wins will be hated and loathed by half the country regardless of what they do. Many people avoid politics altogether as a result. Of course the problem with this position is that the government of the United States is based on the participation of citizens. Uninformed citizens and/or citizens that refuse to engage in the political process are negligent in their duty.
There are others that, when confronted with an attack against their political views, feel compelled to counter-attack. This occurs whether or not the initial attack was a legitimate argument, or whether or not the initial attack was directed at them personally. Of course, the mud being slung makes it difficult not to take some attacks personally. A member of the Mormon church might be offended by people referring to Temple garments as "magic underwear" when what the real purpose of the attack was is "don't vote for Mitt Romney." On the other side of the spectrum, a liberal might be offended by portrayals of Democrats as perpetrators in rape tents with the Occupy Wall Street movement when the real purpose of such a portrayal is "don't vote for Barack Obama."
The nature of politics in any republic is also a contributor to such a climate. While serious analysts try to examine the business and/or government experience that candidates have, campaigns in almost all parties frequently delve into popularity games that are not so very different from the ploys used in elementary school class office races. "Longer recess" and "soda machines in the lunch room" won popularity and earned votes, even when the office for which the candidate was running did not have power to keep such promises.
Even promises that are valid and might be kept are sometimes thwarted by unforeseen events such as court rulings. People that honestly want to improve their government and country can become easily frustrated when they see people fighting so vehemently against them. Even pious religious leaders have been seen on both ends of the political spectrum demonizing views that they believe are immoral.
To add additional difficulty to the task of political engagement, the government has become increasingly involved in moral and/or religious issues in the past fifty years than they ever had before. Nearly every ideology is affected by government involvement. Those on the left are frequently telling the government to stay out of their reproductive systems, such as in attempting to ban abortions. Those on the right are upset that private doctors are not permitted to refuse treatments they view as unethical such as abortions. The Atheist feel unrepresented when a public servant says "God bless America." The Christian feels unrepresented when a public servant pulls down a cross that memorializes veterans. Ideologies are far less compatible today than they have been. It feels as though the amount of common ground that exists is shrinking.
The question becomes, in spite of the hostile climate, how does one fulfill their political responsibility without becoming a troll? The following list explores solutions:
- Be informed. Nasty political advertisements are not effective against people who have already looked at the issues and come to their own conclusions. They target the uninformed. This leads into the next point which is...
- Choose reliable sources of information. There is no such thing as an unbiased source, since no source presents all of the information. The decisions regarding what to report and what to ignore are always based on the opinions of editors (and others) as to what is important or what will bring the most viewing.
- Don't get offended. This is of course easier said than done. Try to avoid sources of information that use images and language that will bother you. Unsubscribe to the posts of some of your Facebook friends. Stop following celebrities on Twitter. Of course, eventually you will find something that offends you. Resist the urge to immediately post something in rebuttal. Evaluate whether pursuing a dialog is for the purpose of informing or rebuking can prevent pointless debates. This leads into the next point which is...
- Avoid pointless debates. If you have already made up your mind and cannot be persuaded, talking to someone else who has made up their mind and cannot be persuaded probably wastes time. Debates are only helpful for weighing two opposing views. If you talk to someone who is unsure, being persuasive is perfectly fine. Being a little abrasive might even be ok, depending on the people involved and assuming that arguments presented are founded in facts and honest beliefs rather than clever fallacies.
- Prioritize your principles. Do you know what things you would be willing to compromise? Do you have ideals from which you cannot withdraw support? Candidates and platforms include so many issues, and it is possible that opposing parties might have some elements that are appealing. Those that most firmly support what is most important to you should have support. For Christians, the most important principles must be religious. Saving mankind by embracing good and denouncing evil is more important than saving whales. For environmental purists, saving whales is far more important than other economic or governmental concerns. Choices between platforms become easier when you know what is most important to you.
- Be consistent. Another way this point might be phrased is to examine your beliefs to see if there are any problems. This does not mean to go read everything from people that disagree with you and hate you... It also does not mean that if you find an inconsistency, you should throw out your principles immediately. Is there a better argument to support something that you believe in your heart? Are the arguments to believe something else more compelling? Everyone is guilty of some hypocrisy, but the effort to keep it to a minimum is a good thing.
The purpose of this post is not to persuade anyone to subscribe to my political views (although the world would undoubtedly be a much better place if everyone did). The main point is that it is ok to be politically involved, and even passionately so, as long as we do not become the vile things of which our opponents accuse us. Be an American, not a troll.
