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 . . . it’s (still) all about Donald Trump…which it has been since he first declared his intention to run for President. No one can deny that Donald Trump is polarizing – this is his modus operandi, beginning with name calling. And it’s worked, keeping him in the headlines, dominating the conversation and setting the frame of the debate. What some might argue, since it is obviously effective, is that it’s OK. But that assumes victory at all costs is OK. So, what is the cost? It’s this: Rational thinking about disagreements over complex issues…or even about what is real. Is this a cost we can afford?
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:
Red Headlines
The Trump Presidency: A Success Story
The Left Is So Filled With Hate For Trump They Are Pro-War
The Trump Investigation Hoax Unravels
Audience at Donald Trump Hispanic Business Event Chant ‘Four More Years
Trump and North Korea: Proof The Reagan Doctrine Works
DONALD TRUMP/WOODY HAYES: SIMALARITIES
Trump Is Not a Threat to a Free Press Despite Inflamed Rhetoric, Obama Administration and DNCs.
Blue Headlines
Frightened, Trump Refuses To Attend White House Correspondents’ Dinner
Trump Screws Over 3 Americans Being Held In N. Korea Because He Needs A Win
There’s No Lie Too Small, No Abuse Too Petty To Be Overlooked By Trump
Trump Gets Humiliated By Protesters While Leaving Florida
If It’s Conclusively Demonstrated That Trump Is A Criminal, Republicans Will Have No Problem With It
Trump His A New Level Of Pathetic As He Shows His Terror Over Obstruction Of Justice