Greg Munford

A turning point? Let’s hope so.

We, as Americans, cherish the freedom and right to disagree—which we do, often deeply about important issues that need resolution. But polarization undermines that freedom by tightening prejudices rather than opening thought, thus diminishing the chances for finding resolutions and moving forward. So while polarization may feel like a righteous champion of freedom and right, it is in fact just the opposite—a stick jammed in the spokes of the democratic discourse of freedom. Here are some of the common ways it does it:

SEDUCES with loaded, heated language and childish name-calling that appeals more to emotion that reason.
BLINKERS by using cherry-picked facts, and ignoring or mocking opposing arguments and evidence rather than actually addressing them.
TRIVIALIZES by focusing on “straw-man” issues whose value in re-enforcing biases is clearly greater than their substance.
BULLIES by making you feel like a dupe or a traitor if you even listen to the other side.
FLATTERS with language and a tone that makes you feel like an insider, who, of course, agrees with them because you “get it” … just like they do.
FRIGHTENS by portraying the other side as not just wrong, but a dangerous, evil enemy, replete with wicked hidden agendas.
“CLANS,” that is, plays the “us vs. them” identity politics game of associating the other view with groups or people (implicitly) “inferior” to “us.”
“TRIBES” by using the knowing winks and nods of sarcasm, coded language, words in quotes (suggesting they’re misleading) and innuendo which you, as a member of the tribe, of course, will understand without explanation or justification.

This week . . . F*** TRUMP! What better distillation of polarization can there be? The expletive heard ‘round the world! But interestingly, it seems to have ignited not just the predicable strong reactions from both sides of the scream-fest, but also a number of thoughtful responses, from both sides, that suggest perhaps this is not the way to actually improve things. What follows is what I felt to be one of the better discussions about to this notorious F.Y. moment – which , looking back, perhaps will be seen as a turning point? Let’s hope so.

The problem with Robert De Niro’s F-bomb wasn’t the vulgarity
The Washington Post
By Christine Emba
June 13, 2018
The problem with Robert De Niro’s using the F-word against President Trump isn’t the word itself — it’s the absence of underlying content.
Indeed, even Trump himself seems a bit confused by the meaning of De Niro’s weekend outburst. As if the actor hadn’t reached a wide enough audience, the president decided to weigh in while flying back from his Singapore meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. “Robert De Niro, a very Low IQ individual, has received too many shots to the head by real boxers in movies. I watched him last night and truly believe he may be ‘punch-drunk.’ ”
Punch-drunk, or maybe just missing the mark. The Academy Award winner dropped the F-bomb onstage during Sunday night’s Tony Awards, where he was supposed to be introducing the equally famous Bruce Springsteen. Veering off-script, De Niro declared: “I’m going to say one thing, F— Trump.” He doubled down. “It’s no longer down with Trump. It’s f— Trump.
At this point, awards shows are generally understood to be glamorous fountains of not-particularly-helpful political commentary rather than go-to sources for incisive critiques. The practice of smug liberalism, with its divisive fallout, seems to reach its apotheosis during events such as the Oscars, Tonys and Golden Globes. Still, De Niro’s “F— Trump,” much like Samantha Bee’s recent vulgar description of Ivanka Trump on the comedian’s own late-night show, marks a new and rather disappointing moment in our already embattled discourse.
It’s not even that such statements are obscene or unkind, as many on the right rushed to declare, no matter that the right can be performative in its own grating way. For better or for worse — or, just for worse — obscenity has become an embedded feature of our discourse, emanating from the top down. It’s an almost pleasant surprise that Trump limited his own rebuttal to “punch-drunk,” rather than, say, the p-word he’s famous for.
What’s more worth sighing over is the fact that statements such as these are content-less, and thus useless. They are sound and fury, signifying nothing — inflammatory eruptions that degrade the quality of existing discussion without building anything in its place.
“F— Trump.” Well, sure, if you must. Then what? It’s not clear that De Niro spurred the Tony Awards crowd (which, considering the estimated wealth and influence of its near-6,000 in-person attendees, might well be in a position to make some sort of change) to do anything but stand and cheer, and then proceed to the after-party.
Some would say the vulgarity, cruelty and systematic harm created by the Trump administration demand a cutting response in turn. For instance, writer Rebecca Traister argued in New York magazine that “Bee is acting on behalf of less powerful people (the immigrants whose children, including babies, are being taken away from them) and speaking out against the grotesquely powerful and abusive (the administration that is creating and enforcing this barbaric policy).” She concluded, “Words matter, and sometimes only the strongest ones will do the job.”
But there are words, and then there is the actual “job” — that of improving the administration, seeking to change it or attending directly to the needs of those affected by its policies. The one can influence the other. Language changes how we think. When we use increasingly divisive and polarized language in the public square, we change how we are able to interact, discuss and exist together. The F-bombs and c-words are a distraction from the actual work that could be done and cut off possibilities for cooperation in the future. And, as professional entertainers should have figured out by now, they’re boring.
But how much can you expect from an actor, really? Well, more than these latest statements have delivered. In 2016, President Barack Obama awarded De Niro the Presidential Medal of Freedom, in part because of his work as a philanthropist, something that his latest attempts at discourse have obscured. Instead of just declaring “F— Trump” from the stage, perhaps De Niro and those like him could climb down and do something about it.

When reading these examples, check the above list and ask yourself: regardless of whether you agree or disagree, is this really advancing an intelligent resolution through the persuasive, rational arguments of advocacy…or simply fueling the fire of conflict through the divisive, emotional manipulations of polarization?

Here are just a few of the week’s polarizing headlines, from the left and right: