The Divided Americans

Many are talking about a 'divided' America, particularly during and after the recent elections. Most define this division into two major groups, based on the political views held by the people in the group. One group is supposedly 'The Right' and the other supposedly 'The Left'. 'The Right' is identified with Trump supporters and 'The Left' is identified with all those who oppose them. This is the most neutral and least offensive way in which I can classify or label this division. 
Actual members of the two groups often have far less complementary labels for each other -  'Deplorables' and 'Libtards' being, surprisingly, in more common currency!

 "Right Wing Nuts', 'Leftist Loonies', 'Terrorist Sympathisers','Traitors', 'Extremists', 'Racists', 'Fascists','Communists', 'Idiots' are also among the more commonly used epithets.

I think it is a fallacy in thinking that it is the particular set of political views (either 'Leftist' or 'Rightist') that is the cause and reason for division.

I think that the real reason for the division is not the actual political views held by a person ('Leftist' or 'Rightist'), but how a person deals with another person with an opposing or different view.

I observe that the people who remain divided are all strikingly alike in how they deal with or respond to another person no matter what their political view or opinions. Unless these people change their ways of approaching differences, they will continue to remain divided. There seems to be no scope or easy way for them to convince others or be convinced themselves or accept the differences and yet get along with their opposition.

 I observe that there are two kinds of USAnians -

1) The United Americans - people holding diverse beliefs and political views but all still united as one group,  as one people or one nation, to move the country and society forward, working together.

2) The Disunited Americans - a large set of people holding broadly two sets of opposing political views who do NOT want to convince others or be convinced themselves by any logic or reason or simply accept differences and still work together.  They WANT to remain holding on to their views and only accept people who concur with them into their group.

Here are some common traits of the 'Disuniteds' in the USA. Interestingly enough, I find this exact same phenomenon among the disuniteds of India or other countries, particularly among those educated in English medium, the ruling 'elites', those exposed to the Western culture, media and societies.This is something they seemed to have picked up. They have become effectively 'Un-Unitable'. They thrive and survive on division.

1) Labeling the opposition or its members with an offensive label or name-calling or characterization right at the start of any 'discussion' or 'debate'.

Statements like the following are typical starters coming from the Left or Right -

"What are you smoking?"

"That kind of stupid thing is what a clueless libtard would say - let all the illegals stay and keep the borders open"

"How could you support such a racist, dumb clown and conman who speaks like that?"

"By brainless liberal logic - if you take guns away from law-abiding citizens, you make expect to make people feel safer?"

"Well, enough of these cuckoo brains, the only global warming is the hot air these whackos are blowing out their asses"

"I cannot believe anyone with half a brain or common sense would vote for that thug. That is frightening, dangerous and totally unacceptable to civilzed society. If he is elected, I am leaving the country!!"

"That might be so in your la-la land"

"That traitorous Obozo..."

Think about it: These are not good opening lines with which to start a process of 'coming together' - to create a mood of wanting to come together. In fact, if one wanted to kill off any such impulses the other person may have, the above are excellent examples of useful opening shots.

2) Make up a 'straw man' argument, demolish it, speak inaccurately on behalf of the opposition as if speaking their mind. Say something that is patently false, ridiculous or obviously unacceptable and state it as the position or view of the opposite party.

The following are some typical examples:

"He called all Mexicans rapists, murderers and has no respect for women"

"He is an Israel hater and wants to bring in terrorists into our country across open borders"

"Sure! He would say that! That's what his master Putin tells him to say. I cannot imagine anyone in their right minds willing to have a Russian puppet running this country!"

"They want to destroy the environment, our rivers and lakes and give companies free reign to pollute with no oversight!"

"They want to kill police officers and don't value their lives"

"They don't care about the lives of minorities - Blacks, Latinos, LGBT"

Think about it: If the tactics in Step 1 did not work and put off the person from wanting to have a meaningful discussion, this step might do the job. If even this does not work, there are the following options.

3) Never taking or making the time or effort to LISTEN IN GOOD FAITH to any reasons the others might give to support their view point - show a willingness to be convinced by logic or reasoning

An approach along this track is acting 'too clever' by completely ignoring any attempt by the opposition to present a logical or rational explanation. Of course, while one could ultimately legitamately disagree if not convinced,  that option is forgotten or conveniently ignored. Typically one becomes more concerned or threatened if the other person is actually being reasonable or rational, because that would mean one could be on the path to  having to change one's mind!!  To many, that appears to be the ultimate fear.

A typical response in such situations is feigning 'tactical stupidity or ignorance' as a strategy by grossly and inaccurately simplifying any statement made or splicing the opposition's statement to distort it or spin it and keep harping on it until that person gives up frustrated or hurt or offended. This signifies 'victory' in the effort to keep holding on to one's position 'officially' and not admitting 'defeat'.

"So you are saying that giving everyone access to more guns will make us safer?"

"When you have no respect for the lives of police officers and think it is OK for them to be killed...."

"When elect someone who thinks it is OK to sexually assault women"

"So you are OK with him cozying up to an authoritarian dictator who has killed and tortured his opponents? (Never mind the fact that the person referred to may have been democratically elected in a fairer election)"


4) Never give out clear reasons to support one's own views - show a willingness to try and convince the other by reason or logic

This is usually achieved by stonewalling, talking about peripheral or unrelated issues, turning on more insults, innuendo or spouting a bunch of cliches or hyperboles. This will completely frustrate anyone on the other side listening in good faith and make them want to throttle you - 'Mission Accomplished!!'

"He sympathises with Iranians. That is an enemy of Israel!! He hates us and wants to destroy us and our friends."


"You are being a Nazi! I bet you loved Hitler" (This is often the first and last resort of some on both sides)

"Love Trumps Hate"  (Ask if this applies to Russians)

"No we don't hate anyone as long as they play fair. (Ask if this applies to Chinese, Arabs or Muslims or even other Americans who disagree with you)"


5)  Never accept anything sensible said or reportedly said by someone who is from another or  'enemy' nation because that would somehow imply that common sense or some valuable thought or wisdom can be found in people outside one's own country. 'Politics above Principles' is the expected norm in this approach!

Statements such as the following are typical in this category.

"But that is what the Russians say and would want, is it not?"

"I do not care a rat's a$$ for what that Communist loving pr**k says. He wants to suck up to China!"

"I don't want to hear what a dictator slime-ball says!"

Using even a sensible slogan as a tactical weapon, effectively damages it irreparably in the eyes of a large number of people, especially if its message is not put into practice.

Here are a some  classic examples.

"Love Trumps Hate" (Check whether this applies to Trump and his supporters)

"When they take the low road, we take the high road" (Sounds good but ....)

"Stronger Together" (So what are you trying to bring people together? Do you think your approach is working? or will work?)

"We have started 'winning' again!" (What exactly is being won? At what price? What is being lost? Is it worth it, if one loses unity among a large number of fellow citizens for the long run?)

Summary: Looking at the whole picture, it seems to me that many are divided and will remain divided because that is how they _want_ to be. One can never convince some people to unite or love each other.

I reckon many among the divided will personally agree that it is perfectly OK to feel and show love and respect in every personal dealing with a person one strongly disagrees with, as long as they reciprocate. If their own efforts fail due to the arrogance and ego of the other, people move on to the stage of responding with a sting - to perhaps salvage some personal satisfaction of giving back some of the pain and offense and the merry, vicious cycle continues. It cannot happen by only one side yielding all the time. Humility seems to be a taboo in today's discussions. Willingness to be convinced is another.

If it is to become a more truly United States of America or any other  'united' nation in the world, there has to be less of the above patterns of behaviour in what passes for debate or discussion. Coming together has to come from the heart and soul - a sense of belonging to a greater common group and a desire to deal in good faith for the common good. That cannot be imposed. It has to come from within, either by a flash of wisdom or painful experiences.


Copyright  (c) Kannan Narayanamurthy 2016
All rights reserved