I have struggled with understanding the political environment and the emotional reactions the environment has generated since 2016. Why have the anger and hatred been elevated when disagreement and argument have always been part of politics and some other areas in which I participate (e.g., science)?
I have come to this conclusion. This period in political awareness has brought to the surface and distributed for public consumption core differences in important values that were not so visible in the past. This surfacing and visibility have resulted from the behavior of prominent politicians (i.e., Donald Trump) and from social media which has opened up communication about issues and values. My political candidates have often lost elections, but while I was not pleased, life for me went on pretty much as normal. Again, in past elections the constant coverage of candidate behavior was limited and now the capacity to make public so much information about behavior revealing much more about attitudes, core beliefs, and inconsistencies between public messaging and lived behavior or between just messaging from one week to the next, offer so much more of value to the development of personal insights. The reaction of plain folk to this deluge of information offers a secondary input that has also been disconcerting. Time and again, I wonder how anyone seeing what I am seeing could possibly turn a blind eye. Are they not seeing what I am seeing because they spend all of their time with Fox News or Breitbart or are they seeing the same things that so bother me and are willing to ignore the message and values being expressed in such behavior. I can’t say, but both differences matter. Knowingly limiting your information inputs is a problem a good education should have prevented. The term academics now use to explain the counter to disinformation and misinformation is lateral reading.
Explaining away what I regard as completely reprehensible behavior because “he gets things done” (which I am not sure I actually see) or “he tells it like it is” is unacceptable to me. I don’t buy the ends justify the means rationale. The acceptance of evil and morally corrupt behavior by people who claim to be Christian is possibly what troubles me the most. What exactly is the basis for the faith being professed?
So, am I willing to back down? I don’t think so. I have far less influence than the political establishment and I observe that leaders model and will continue to push ideas I find reprehensible. In fairness, if you object to my positions, make certain you are also complaining about the individuals I have made it my mission to counter. Show me this isn’t the case if you can. I find it personally irresponsible to know these messages and values are out there without push back. The positive thing about social media is that it provides this opportunity. Use the opportunity fairly.
I try to offer facts when I know facts exist, but in some cases the interpretation of facts rests in values such as indifference to the less fortunate and those who happen to have been born in other countries or as a member of a minority race or as a female, indifference to those who have the bad luck to be born with genetic or other causes of medical predispositions for poor health outcomes, failure to accept that individuals value different religious convictions or are not believers, indifference to the decline of the environment to the detriment of those who will live in this environment in the future, and so many similar issues that have at the core a lack of acceptance of others in the past, present, or future as equals. I admit to not accepting certain differences in values I see as necessary for a just society.
So, in the language of the 60s, this is where I am coming from.