Misinformation has had no better outlet than the internet, spawning and being spread by millions of users daily. Like an epidemic, false information spreads throughout the population, infecting the minds of the people that encounter it, however, it is easy to debunk misinformation using logic and proactive research. So, if information is relatively simple to validate, why is false information being readily believed and advocated for by large parts of the population? The answer is that the polarization of politics has given almost every issue a bias and persuasive edge. Organizations, government representatives, and prominent individuals utilize rhetoric that insight anger and anxiety that leaves the public vulnerable to the embracement of misinformation. …show more content…
is in an ever-worsening predicament, left and right politicly minded citizens are shifting further and further apart, with a conglomerate of fringe views becoming the norm within their respected party. As this phenomenon of polarization has developed it has fueled larger and more fierce debates within Washington D.C. and the American public. Many of which devolve into arguments with no foreseen end, with both sides exhausted and having made no progress in persuading the other to agree with their agenda. However, many people believe that polarization is the status quo in America politics and that the numerous conflicts are an inevitability. That the acceptance of misinformation has some other external cause. This state of mind is a relatively recent development, that is especial prevalent in younger generations. This is due to an abundant of conservative politicians that were strongly opposed to Barack Obama due to his race and liberal views. Since his presidency lasted for such an extended period, the false information spread about Obama, like his citizenship being forged, became common and accepted in the minds of people that held a distaste for him. This is shown in Weeks research, Emotions, Partisanship, and Misperceptions: How Anger and Anxiety Moderate the Effect of Partisan Bias on Susceptibility to Political Misinformation, that in 2013, 64% of Republicans said it was “probably true” that Obama was hiding information about his birth place, and that 58% of Republicans expressed anger at Obama (713). Thus, the interaction of aversion and partisanship facilitated the belief in the false information. As American politics becomes increasing polarized, an increasing amount of misinformation will be taken up as fact in the minds of opposing groups, as a result of the escalated anger that is produced with repetitive political
Information is spoon fed to individuals. An illusion of choice is present; people can always choose the news station they watch, but which station, if any, has the most accurate information? Social media and television create opinions for people so they can sit back and accept the ludicrous concepts as their own. Post are composed of current political events such as gay marriage and police brutality, but the repetition is obvious; it’s evident that the opinions are derived from others without true original thoughts or consideration on the matter. Thoughts are crammed down the throats of the people, and the people willingly accept and adopt them.
In the article, “The Case for Partisanship” by Matthew Yglesias, he explains how in the 1950’s, the American Political Science Association’s Committee strongly presented the idea that polarization is good. Today, many people look down upon political polarization. The mid-20th century appeared united politically but in fact the country was deeply divided over civil rights and politics. Conservatives and liberals could appear in both the Republican and Democratic parties due to foreign policy and racial issues overlapping on traditional conservative and liberal beliefs. The interconnection of political parties in the past has suddenly gone down.
This chapter focuses on other possible explanations for increased political polarization and then explain how they don’t account for increased polarizations. The authors give plenty of possible counterarguments for their audience to consider and then show why they are right by shutting those counterarguments down with an overwhelming amount of evidence. They introduce counterarguments like intraparty competition during primaries, partisan congressional reforms, redistricting, and Southern Realignment. Intraparty competition during primaries does not show significant differences in legislators for there to be a solid argument. There are statistics that show that polarization would have been unaltered even without changes in partisan congressional reforms.
A period that was supposed to be a “time of hope and rebirth,” with President Obama’s arrival into the oval office actually resulted in political polarization that had struck everyone in Washington and around the country (34). Leibovich
Politics. What does it do to us and our views of people? In “Divided We Now Stand,” Susan Page, the current Washington Bureau Chief for USA today, explains just that. She spends the article giving readers studies and insights as to how people oppose simply because the party says to oppose, and she shows us how people feel about opposing parties and treat them as a result of partisan views. In this article, Page has many good points and strategies, but her argument could be improved.
Throughout the course of the last year, the political climate around the citizens of the United States – as well others around the world who were affected – became exceedingly politically charged. The country and its people were faced with a deep and complicated partition. Directly derived from the 2016 United States presidential election, political messages had become common place throughout all forms of media. From television shows, music, and the most apparent being news outlets, the population was continuously exposed to political ideals of different groups, as well as debates against their own. Even so, there have been countless times when political messages are not as apparent or as direct.
In the article Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America, Morris Fiorina addresses the issue of the illusion of political polarization. Political polarization is the separation of political beliefs into two separate extremes. The main illustration Fiorina uses is the use the electoral map. The electoral map is used to gauge which party won an election or polling.
Polarization in politics refers to a sharp division of political attitudes as a party, into opposing parties. Partisan polarization over the past thirty years has negatively affected Congress’s ability to govern. Because of this polarization of the parties, Congress is now divided and practically dysfunctional. Similar voting between the Republicans and the Democrats was common through the 1980’s, but in the 1990’s the parties became ideologically distant with a decline of a center ground and began pulling away from each other. The main causes of this polarization are that Republicans have become more consistently conservative while Democrats have become more consistently liberal.
In Ruben Navarrette’s opinion piece in the USA Today, “Don’t be a 100 percent-er”, she discusses the partisanship involved in two major American political issues, guns and abortion. The beliefs of most people of these two political debates mostly coincide with their political party, with Democrats being on the side for gun control and be pro-choice, while Republicans are on the side of less gun control and be pro-life. Navarrette argues that this partisanship, these contrasting views with no grey in between, is fracturing the country, and politics is not about absolutes. She goes on to describe that there are people in the United States, including the author herself, that have beliefs in this grey area, and that going more to the fringes is
Demagoguery is described as a tool used by political figures to try and gain appeal. However, Patrica Roberts-Miller describes demagoguery in a more interesting way than just gaining appeal. The baseline of demagoguery is that there are two sides to the argument. One side is the in-group, this is what most people like to belong to because it’s theoretically the good side. The out-group is not where a lot of people want to belong because it’s considered the bad side.
Joshua J. Castro Professor Iyer POL-1 21 November 2014 Essay Option #1 Politically Socialized The beautiful thing about living in the United States is that every person is entitled to their own political beliefs without the fear of incarceration. Everything outside influence on a person's political thought process is considered “political socialization.” Nearly anything someone does can have an effect on them on the political battlefield, even if that person does not realize it. Whether it is watching a particular television program, reading a book, partaking in any religious practice, or even attending a certain school, a person can placed somewhere on the political spectrum just by doing one of those things.
Partisans on both sides of politics are often so angry with each other that they barely communicate, making it difficult to work together to find solutions for America’s issues. Extreme partisans sometimes refuse to work with members of an opposing party. Each party believes the other is treasonous, and is purposely harming the nation. The same Pew Research Center study found that opposite sides do not just believe they have better ideas, but honestly think the other party is more interested in partisan gains than the well-being of the nation. The study also found that over that last thirty years the nation has become more partisan, and Congress has become less effective.
Put all these together and they tell the story of political ideology. [1]
Political identification can bring a sense of unity amongst other individuals who also align with their political identification. Political polarization refers to cases in which someone’s stance on a given issue, policy, or person is strictly defined by their identification with a particular political party or ideology. Polarization has the potential to threaten our democracy, it doesn’t allow for productive conversations or compromise; something necessary for a healthy democracy. Polarization affects not only congress’s ability to make policy change, but it also creates a political atmosphere constantly in stalemate. While polarization often times isn’t good for a democracy, there are a few ways in which it can also be beneficial to our two-party
One of the major problem in our society may be the over flooding of fake news. Fake news can be identified as the false information within official-looking websites and often can be misleading for readers. Fake news are commonly known for their inconvenience and bias information, those fake news gains tons of attention due to their over exaggerated title and content; and highly spottable on various types of social media such as Facebook, Snapchat and Twitter. Once the fake news go viral and trending the people who created them will obtain money from advertisement. In order to stop or avoid fake news, you should recognize them by their traits.