2008 Woodie Awards
Politics are too dualistic
Joseph Froemming
Issue date: 9/17/07 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 1
There are too many people whose politics seem to be made from partisan cookie cutters and pundit Jell-O molds.
Their mouths spew with so many paraphrases of Michael Moore or Bill O'Reilly quotes, it goes beyond simple annoyance.
They play the role of "liberal" or "conservative."
SCSU is full of people like this, and all too often they play their roles into a stereotype worthy of a "South Park" parody.
Often it can lead you into a very dull conversation full of empty talking points.
Why is it that people feel the need to choose between cheap ideological lines that very rarely allow them to stray if they might disagree with an issue? What if a self-proclaimed liberal doesn't agree with gun control? What if a conservative doesn't agree with a ban on gay marriage?
This dualistic view on political issues is problematic.
We live in the Red versus Blue madness of national politics. Every presidential election we see the large map of the United States divided by states marked with red or blue.
That definitely has a symbolic impact on this country and probably on each state's voter turnout.
As I have experienced more than a few times, people who assume you are part of their ideological team tend to get really upset if you disagree with them.
They get upset because you do not fit into their perception of what you are supposed to be.
Perhaps the reason people are becoming more and more extreme in playing a political role is they tend to listen to only one viewpoint of anything.
They tend to listen to whatever fits comfortably into their worldview.
Anything that challenges their stance is foreign and wrong.
Even if the opposing view makes sense, people tend to fight it viciously anyway. It is almost like a mental illness.
People really ought to think about things and come to their own conclusions about them.
If more people did this, then perhaps we would have competent leaders in our government, instead of pandering robots telling us what we want to hear.
We would have discourse in this nation instead of red-faced pundits yelling at each other for hours on end, which accomplishes nothing.
Their mouths spew with so many paraphrases of Michael Moore or Bill O'Reilly quotes, it goes beyond simple annoyance.
They play the role of "liberal" or "conservative."
SCSU is full of people like this, and all too often they play their roles into a stereotype worthy of a "South Park" parody.
Often it can lead you into a very dull conversation full of empty talking points.
Why is it that people feel the need to choose between cheap ideological lines that very rarely allow them to stray if they might disagree with an issue? What if a self-proclaimed liberal doesn't agree with gun control? What if a conservative doesn't agree with a ban on gay marriage?
This dualistic view on political issues is problematic.
We live in the Red versus Blue madness of national politics. Every presidential election we see the large map of the United States divided by states marked with red or blue.
That definitely has a symbolic impact on this country and probably on each state's voter turnout.
As I have experienced more than a few times, people who assume you are part of their ideological team tend to get really upset if you disagree with them.
They get upset because you do not fit into their perception of what you are supposed to be.
Perhaps the reason people are becoming more and more extreme in playing a political role is they tend to listen to only one viewpoint of anything.
They tend to listen to whatever fits comfortably into their worldview.
Anything that challenges their stance is foreign and wrong.
Even if the opposing view makes sense, people tend to fight it viciously anyway. It is almost like a mental illness.
People really ought to think about things and come to their own conclusions about them.
If more people did this, then perhaps we would have competent leaders in our government, instead of pandering robots telling us what we want to hear.
We would have discourse in this nation instead of red-faced pundits yelling at each other for hours on end, which accomplishes nothing.