In some ways, the internet age and social media has given us all unprecedented access to candidates, their supporters, and most importantly, an exchange of ideas.
So why is it that instead the majority of what I see on my news feed is meme's designed to be both humorous, as well as serve as propaganda for a given candidate? Instead of long form debate about our judicial system as a whole, we simplify the equation to only 2 possible answers. Whatever the red team wants vs whatever the blue team wants.
Here are some that I found with some pretty basic search criteria:
I chose these simply because of their name recognition. I'm sure there are thousands more of the other candidates or past presidents.
These are simple lampooning attempts, reasonably harmless enough, meant to get a laugh, and maybe a "like" from like minded people. However, what seems to be abundantly clear is that the actual dialogue between people isn't that much more advanced. That the election, as elections are wanted to do these days, is about rhetoric more than it is ideas.
Most of our discussion in politics deal with demographics and talking points. How does one appear on camera, do we think the economy will or won't improve under their policies? Yet there is so much information that it becomes overwhelming and we settle for the quick little blurb that can easily be digested in seconds.
I believe we, as private citizens, owe a bit of a civic duty to educate ourselves on the issues and explain our positions without resorting to simplistic rhetoric and propaganda often shared today. Sometimes it can prove difficult to explain your position in a timely fashion, that other people may disagree even with your long, thought out opinion.
But your full opinion matters, and it is worth expounding on, if not on Facebook, then in table discussions and work banter. The point is to keep it civil, and to keep the dialogue beyond a 2 second digestible meme.
No comments:
Post a Comment