In recent years, one of the most evident issues in our society is how we let our politics divide us. The way we paint our political opposition is often laced with half-truths and generalizations. It often seems that we collectively have lost our grasp on reality; we forget that those who hold different opinions or viewpoints are still people, just with different life experiences or other influences that make them believe what they do.
I feel that it’s important to add that it is not my goal to persuade you to any particular party or position on an issue. While it is likely that my personal biases will seep through, my primary goal is to bring to light the issues that we currently face together as a nation and instead to persuade you to consider how you may address them within your own sphere of influence.
A recent tenet of our political world has been an uptick in political violence. The murders of Charlie Kirk, the Minnesota legislator Melissa Hortman and her husband Mike, and the attempted assassinations of President Trump all are beginning to set a dangerous precedent for how we as Americans deal with our differences.
Often, it seems that we cannot hold civil discourse anymore; many view their political rivals as clowns who have lost their minds. Social media worsens this significantly, many accounts are either bots intended to troll people online or post shortened out-of-context clips. One prime example I noticed around the Charlie Kirk assassination was his quote on empathy, some people claimed that he hated empathy and therefore we shouldn’t have sympathy for him or his family. However, the full quote says something different entirely. As far as I’ve been able to find (being such a controversial quote, sources online are often contradictory or don’t use and address the whole quote nor do they often provide context), this was said in regards to politicians using the word empathy as a way to manipulate voter emotions.
“I can’t stand the word empathy. I think empathy is a made-up new-age term, and it does a lot of damage. Sympathy, I prefer more than empathy,” Kirk is quoted as saying.
Sympathy is defined as “feelings of pity or sorrow at someone else’s misfortune,” meanwhile, empathy is “the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.” I remember seeing somebody claim that the point he was trying to make was that a person cannot feel someone’s emotions when they go through tragedy, they can only feel sad that the other person is upset.
Following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, this quote was often cut to exclude the third sentence and claim that he lacked empathy and sympathy for others. This is often called ‘Clip Farming’ and is not always used politically, but is essentially when a social media channel uploads short, out of context quotes or moments. It could be a funny line from a streamer or a politician saying something about a political opponent. When used in politics it can be extremely damaging because they can take a part where a politician may have said something controversial but lacks the context of their claim; doing this can affect the perception people have of the speaker and those associated with the speaker. According to Pew Research Centre, in 2025 about a fifth of people will receive most of their news via social media, where clip farming is most prevalent. Both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of doing this, for example, many political commentators only upload the parts of their debates where their debate opponent lost their temper or had no evidence. Doing this could cause many young people to overgeneralize those they think of as their political opposition because they only see the unprepared people step up to debate, thus making their issues seem personal rather than based on personal beliefs and values.
In our sphere of influence, as teachers and students, the issue tends to be similar. Students refuse to speak with or consistently ridicule their classmates who have different opinions. Meanwhile, they over-generalize this political opposition, which can dehumanize their opposition and devalue their peers’ arguments, preventing them from actually listening to their peers. I would say it is easier for small arguments to grow into political violence if somebody no longer views their political rivals as people.
So, how could we ease this political division or tension? I believe the first step would be to de-stigmatise talking about politics. All too often have I seen a potentially productive conversation begin and then be shut down by someone unready to hear their ideas challenged. We need to stop name-calling and instead focus on understanding. I am not advocating for bringing politics into every situation; there is certainly a time and a place for talking about politics.
Personally, a lot of my friends and I disagree on politics; I talk to them about their stances on subjects fairly often, and I’ve found that sometimes they have good reasons. These may change or adjust my opinion or help me prove my own opinion to myself. Whether or not I agree with them doesn’t really matter as long as we are having a respectful, calm conversation. Conversations like these help me understand why some people believe what they believe, and approaching these as conversations rather than arguments has certainly broadened my understanding of these issues.
Yet nothing frustrates me more than when someone I politically agree with presents their ideas poorly. It’s also important to realize that usually the loudest people are going to be the least educated on issues. When talking about your political views remember how much appearance matters, often it seems that people tend to take a ‘my way or the highway’ type of tone that prevents people from even engaging in that kind of conversation because they think that the other person simply would not listen to the argument. Similarly, people should reflect on their approach with how they approach politics, some people seem to take a ‘I am never wrong’ type of viewpoint. Yet, there is never a ‘cure all’ solution to politics, there’s never a definitive cure for an issue; there’s only a way that works better than the other, like how capitalism is not without issues but works better than communism. So when people take ‘I am never wrong’ or ‘they are never right’ they never slow down to listen to what the other person truly has to say, let alone why they believe what they do.
Overall, the way we approach politics causes the division we have in our country. We’ve begun to lose the ability to effectively communicate our ideas in an appropriate manner. This has led to unbelievable division and strife. The goal should never be to make someone upset, but instead to share your ideas in an agreeable manner because otherwise you may demonize yourself in the eyes of the person you are trying to talk to. Remember at the end of the day, everyone is hopefully trying to make a better life for themselves and the rest of the American people.
