The Decline of the Average American (politically, at least)

If you've known me for any stretch of time, you know that I have pretty strong opinions. Thus, I tend to get annoyed easily. A short list of things that annoy me:

- Rigid structure

- A lack of respect

- Nationals baseball (even though we won today, shoutout to future Cy Young Patrick Corbin)

- People who speak but don't listen

- Rob Manfred

But I'm annoyed on a regular basis by something far worse than any of these things, something that you probably hate just as much as I do: a tiny amount of people with really loud opinions making decisions and complaining with no regard for the actual opinion of the public. (I know, read your mind, right? People definitely think about that all the time, right?)

Seriously, though. My least favorite thing about modern politics is not only the divisiveness, but the divide between the only two groups that make noise. When it comes down to it, I don't believe that all Americans are on an extreme end of the political spectrum; I do believe that there are significantly more on either end today than, say, 10 years ago, but that's a product of a broken system, not a cause.

Let me explain. I'm gonna try to define the root of the problem, and provide a suggestion as to how we can point our leaders in the right direction (and yes, I'm well aware of the irony behind that statement. Such is our day and age).

Politics were never simple, but politicians used to at least pretend that they had the same goal. Every election year, just as it is now, both candidates were in similar situations. Both automatically held at least some portion of the public, simply by the nature of the party they ran with. The difficult part of a campaign was winning over the portion of the public that was not radicalized in either direction; these people were independents, perhaps leaning one way or another, but never identifying fully with one party. Therefore, candidates were forced to modify the goals of their party and their campaign to suit a broader audience; in order to win over the undecided majority, they had to run on a less radical agenda.

This system worked for a few reasons, first and foremost because it ushered in bipartisanship and compromise when the president-elect took office, due to the necessary modifications to their campaign platform. They had to now fulfill promises that they made not only to their party, but also to the independents that gave them their vote; if they backtracked, or pursued a purely partisan agenda while in office, their re-election hopes may very well have vanished.

Nowadays, the system is not completely different. Elections are still decided by an independent group of Americans whose minds are subject to change; unlike previous elections, however, neither candidate actively pursues any sort of bipartisan agenda. This applies to the presidential election, senate races, any election whatsoever.

Again, this is not the cause of today's divisiveness, but instead a secondary result.

The radicalization of the American public began when identifying with a political candidate meant supporting every aspect of their policy, regardless of your political position. I have no idea exactly when that started, but it was within my lifetime.

Let's say you, as an American, hold a few views on politics that you use to decide who you will vote for. Some are classically conservative: you support reduced government spending, maybe. Others are liberal: you support student loan forgiveness (yes, I know those are somewhat contradictory. Bear with me.) You have two realistic presidential candidates to vote for: Candidate A is a Republican who wants to reduce government spending, but thus refuses to forgive student loans. Candidate B is a Democrat who holds the opposite views of the Republican.

10 or so years ago, one candidate would have to compromise somewhat on their platform in order to win your vote, along with the many other undecided Americans. Whichever candidate compromised appropriately, while maintaining the votes of their party, won the election and the support of the American people.

Now, however, the game is played differently. Neither candidate will compromise in any way, shape, or form in order to win your vote; this is one reason why voting today feels like picking the lesser of the two evils, because neither candidate attempts to appeal to moderates. Instead, they appeal completely to their minority of the public, in total fear of losing the support of their party.

Sound familiar? If it does, that's because that is the situation every Republican candidate for office finds themself in. You can either completely pander to the Trumpist side of the Republican party and gain Trump's full support (along with his lemmings), or you can take a stand, run on your own ideals, and lose the support of your own party. The same goes for Democratic candidates, to a lesser extent simply because no Democrat has a fanbase filled with such blind devotion as Donald Trump.

So, back to the point: this is the public's problem too. Saying you're a Democrat or a Republican means you identify with soooo many problematic people and policies; before you can provide any context for your identification, you've already been judged a thousand different ways. That's why I can't identify with a party, and why the moderate majority shouldn't either.

Here's a proposal: stop giving either party attention they do not deserve. Both parties, I believe, have lost the support of the moderate majority; I don't think there's much to be done about it, but if we stop calling ourselves one or the other, maybe we can find a little more common ground before we're instantaneously judged. This is by no means a call to stop voting, or being active in politics; on the contrary, exercise your right to make your voice heard. But don't blindly support candidates, and don't support the party you're used to supporting simply because you don't feel like you have another option. If both sides are equally radical in any given election, then sure: don't vote, pick whichever candidate you feel more confident in, or write in someone you like. But if one side shows a willingness to compromise, I don't think we can afford to let that commitment go unrewarded, even if that candidate may not fit the rest of your criteria. The most important thing for American politics right now is deradicalization, and that starts with compromise.

Another thing I believe: the general public is not stupid, or completely radical. If I thought that most Americans were truly on one side or the other, I wouldn't have written this post. The future of our country depends on you, the discerning moderate; and if you feel alone, remember that you're the majority (at least, I hope so).

So go exercise your civic rights (when you're old enough to have them) and inspect your candidates closely.

Thanks for reading! School is back, so posts will obviously be less consistent, but I'll let you know when they go up. As always, stay safe, healthy, and discerning.

Your friendly, frustrated, neighborhood political blogger,

Emory