Feeding the Politically Dividing Fire
By Vivian Lau
Every time my kindergarten teacher showed us her map of the United States, I’d wonder why California was pink and Mississippi turquoise. Who decided that California was pink? Being a combination of tomboy and a gung-ho Californian, I objected to the application of such an overly feminine color to my state. Now, in a more political sense, society has designated colors for each state: red and blue. That’s how our media has labeled us. Red for conservative right. Blue for liberal left.
We can now see a certain disillusioned attitude towards our government. After the 2004 election, New York was designated a blue state because the majority of the voters supported the Democrat presidential candidate, John Kerry. Now, New York has a reputation for being liberal. One could easily disregard the 40% of voters who backed up the incumbent, Republican George W. Bush. The concept of the colors sends a message to voters that their states are already set on their political views. This contributes to the general disenchantment with voting; as a devastating result, people refuse to vote because they feel disempowered by their majority.
Despite the obvious split between our executive and legislative branch of the government, our Founding Fathers intended to create a branch which would remain unscathed by party influences: the judiciary. This is implied in Article 3 Section 1 of the Constitution, in which the Founding Fathers allowed for judges to serve life terms. Judges can’t be kicked out of office because of their rulings. However, the judicial branch has displayed its susceptibility to partisan politics due to gaps in its structure. The President has the power to suggest a candidate for the position of federal judge. The Senate, charged with political prejudice, is allowed to confirm or reject the President’s choice. The President and the Senate will encourage the confirmation of judges who match their values. These political trapdoors overshadow the candidate’s abilities to be a decent judge. Judges are voted in because of their potential views on potential cases.
Even the High Court of the government has fallen to voting along party lines. In Bush v. Gore (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court showed party loyalties. The decision taken based on along party lines. Many believe that an unbiased verdict would have given more consideration to the authenticity of a recount. This ruling helped augment the division of the nation into red and blue states.
The way our media has set up the availability of news stories also contributes to the schism of our nation. A Yahoo user can now ask favorite search engines to e-mail him/her selected news on specified subjects. Through this filter, the user encourages his/her own bias. People can now chose from a more limited pool of news. Politically charged web sites themselves send one-sided messages to their readers; sites like Huffington Post and Drudge Report propagate politically biased articles and advertise them on their sites. Web surfers limit their news scope by painting their own canvas with what they want to read. Conservatives can receive news from FOX, while liberals can get theirs from NBC.
People complain about how our society is narrow-minded, unable to see the other side of the argument. However, we have a habit of reassuring ourselves of our own values, views, and ideas. We feed ourselves what we want to hear. Thanks to the structure of the government and the polarization of the media, we will, sooner or later, disable our ability to have an honest perception of the world.
