182/365 - Propaganda for President

People like to choose sides.  Choosing sides gives us an opportunity to justify our own often myopic perspective of the way things are, how things should be done, who's right and who's wrong.  There is no better example of this than in politics, and never more true than in a presidential election year.

According to the Washington Post, 90% of us identify with one of the two major political parties. With each party's supporters and ideals, we also get the other side's opposition:

Even if these sentiments fall on the far end of each political spectrum, they do a great job of representing one party's contempt for the other.  And fueled by contempt, oh how the righteous indignation does fly!

One of my family members recently urged me to watch 2016: Obama's America, saying "If you care at all about the future of our country; if care at all about your children, you will make it a point to watch this movie prior to the election."  I took the admonishment seriously and have researched the film.  I may yet watch it, but I will do so with skepticism - not so much because of the commentator's political assertions, but because it is so very clearly propaganda.  Living in a university town that leans liberal, I am exposed to vehement anti-Romney propaganda all the time.  A good many of my Facebook friends post political ads and status updates daily now, and with friends and family standing staunchly in both camps, I witness propaganda-bombs launched left and right.  Sadly, this is the only political meme I've seen so far that I believe is true...

  

Several of my friends have admitted to "unfriending" people because those "friends" posted political commentary contrary their own.  So deeply rooted is their contempt that a relationship with someone on the other side, let alone the opportunity to entertain a different perspective, isn't even a possibility.

Despite what some might consider a pollyannic persuasion to bridge the gap between divided people, I still believe in the value of discourse.  Of course, it's ironic that I lost my best friend several years ago to irreconcilable differences over yet another contentious topic - religion, but back when she and I were still friends, we used to have some very engaging political discussions.  We would go round and round and round again, and after several hours of hashing through a particular issue, we would often realize that at the root of each of our arguments was actually the very same ideal.  We just didn't agree on the best way to articulate it or to achieve it.

Of the many idealistic hopes that I may have for this country, fostering a more constructive dialogue between our two political parties and their followers is perhaps at the top of my list.  One of my favorite shows used to be The West Wing (all political persuasions aside).  One of the most memorable episodes was when - at the unexpected opportunity to sway the Supreme Court toward a more moderate, even liberal majority with the appointment of not one, but two Justices - President Bartlett chose to appoint one notoriously liberal judge and one steadfastly conservative judge.  His justification for the decision was that debate is healthier and that we, as a people, are more likely to find common ground when we are compelled to consider vastly different responses to a particular issue.

Common ground is only possible though, if we are willing to hear and consider the other side.  If our initiative is to converse and not to condemn.  If we take the time to check, not just our facts, but our political egos before entering the arena of debate.  Otherwise, we'll just keep voting for propaganda and politics - and against principles and people.