The Catalyst for Political Division
Shortly after Donald Trump won the presidential election in 2016, I was sitting in a political science course at Washington University in St. Louis; according to the powers that be, WashU had one of the best political science departments in the country at the time. The professor conveyed that he had just received a grant to pursue research on the question of why someone would vote for Donald Trump. Based on other commentary throughout the semester, I think he was genuinely mystified as to why someone would vote for candidate Trump. And he had just secured funding and intended to invest a significant chunk of time to try to answer this question. My question is this: How can a professor at supposedly one of the best political science departments in the country not know or understand why someone would have voted for Trump? Why was this a question that needed academic research?
What was true in 2016 remains true in 2024; it is becoming increasingly common that we simply do not understand each other. It is not just that we disagree; it is that we cannot fathom how or why someone would believe what they believe. If someone wants limited immigration, the only conclusion is that they are xenophobic white nationalists. If someone wants to abolish abortion, the only conclusion is that they want to control women. If someone wants to fund the war in Ukraine, they must be full of bloodlust and want more dead Russians. And if someone voted for Donald Trump, they are surely “deplorables” or, better yet, “garbage.” This inability to understand the nuance of various positions is one of the primary factors contributing to the political divide. However, this inability to understand opposing viewpoints did not just arise overnight. It has been decades in the making.
One of the primary reasons we no longer understand what motivates those with whom we disagree is because we no longer live or associate with those people. Moreover, most of us spend so much time in our social media echo chambers that we have become more and more cemented in our own beliefs. And our humility has been entirely thrown out in the process. How could I possibly be wrong about something if everyone I hear from online says I’m right? As for the WashU political science professor, how could he possibly know why someone voted for Donald Trump if he never had good friendships with, or likely even talked to, a firm Trump supporter? As we’ve become more and more entrenched in our positions through social media, we have gradually stopped having civil and robust dialogue with those whom we disagree in real life. Now, if someone brings up politics in real life, they are increasingly likely to believe that all of those around them agree with them. Social media, and the echo chambers that they are, have convinced us that we are right, and every normal person I know must agree with me; thus, when politics are brought up in the workplace, often the person bringing it up is bashing the other side. If a few people nod in agreement, the one person who disagrees is unlikely to speak up. The majority in the conversation leave feeling validated in their position. And the person who disagreed leaves with the belief that he is hated by the majority, which further isolates him from the nuance of opposing viewpoints. Thus, we find ourselves in 2024, where a presidential candidate was nearly assassinated at least two, if not three times. The sitting president called that candidate’s supporters garbage. And people on the right are becoming more and more convinced that those on the left are murderous child mutilating monsters. Social media bliss!
If only the WashU professor had actually spoken with a Trump voter, he could have pocketed his grant money, and saved himself a lot of time in the process.
Liam
11/16/2024
