American politics has become a mirror image of
a good old-fashioned ‘smash-mouth’ football game. A physical defensive battle. One
backed by many of the sport’s most faithful and passionate fans.
The difference?
The football game ends with players of the
opposing teams shaking hands. Yet, the clashes in American politics simply roll
on to the next day, typically lacking any flash of sportsmanship from either the winning or losing
party.
Compromise is a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side
making concessions.
However, in 21st century American politics the definition appears
quite different. To those
who lean heavily to one side of the ideological spectrum, compromise now appears to mean
that his or her side gets more of what it wants.
During the Obama administration about six in ten across-the-board liberals (62%) say the optimal deal between President
Barack Obama and the GOP should be closer to what Obama wants. At the same
time, about as many consistent conservatives (57%) say an agreement should be
more on the GOP’s terms. Percentages like these do not exactly scream
compromise. Especially when either side prefers to be the winner takes all.
Little did I know the parallels that now seem
so vivid between a high school football playoff game and American politics when
I recently agreed to work as the sideline reporter for a small-town game in South
Carolina.
What was supposed to be a nail-biting close battle
between Bamberg and Barnwell High School ended up a 23-3 victory for Bamberg.
Both teams brought their strong defense, but both teams struggled offensively
for a majority of the first half to put points on the board.
So what finally helped Bamberg score and
eventually take the win? One word: change.
Sometimes-necessary Offensive adjustments
At first, both teams struggled for first downs
as their running game was constantly stopped by the opposition’s defensive
line. Bamberg knew that the way to win this smash mouth football game was to
get out of the trenches and to offer something different. Barnwell struggled to
make adjustments, resulting in 0 touchdowns and some sore running backs.
You may be wondering how this has anything to
do with American politics. Yet perhaps it is this simple scenario that can help
to explain (a) the results of the 2016 election and (b) America’s current
political climate of party polarization.
Picture this: Barnwell represents Hillary
Clinton and the Democratic Party. As the team was well known for its history as
a solid program and its commitment to a running offense, Hillary was a qualified presidential candidate with the credentials and political
experience to back that up. She had been faithful to the ideological views of
the Democratic Party for years before. Her campaign was not focused around change,
but rather an expected Democratic platform of unity and inclusion.
On the other side of the field we have Bamberg:
Donald Trump and the Republican Party. Both had to be unconventional in order
to achieve success. Trump was far from the typical Republican nominee. His change-inspiring platform created a momentum that
became seemingly unstoppable once it gained attention. When the Republican Party opened itself
to the ideological differences in Trump, it eventually landed the party in the
White House.
The Press and the Presidency
The media, of course, played a role as it has
in other elections. My suggestion would be that the roles of the media in the
game of politics resemble my job as the sideline reporter. I had no impact on
the outcome of the game. My commentary from the sidelines following each
quarter served the purpose of educating the viewers. My questions for the
winning coach after the final buzzer simply gave a voice to the 23-3 score.
Yet, many 21st century cable news
sources are acting more like a home-town referee than the reporter. Imagine the difference in the perception
of the game if I was to only report on the incompletions by Bamberg’s offense.
Now imagine me doing so in a Barnwell High School t-shirt. Obviously these
actions would not have effected who won the game. However, viewers most likely
would have grasped a much-less impressive view of Bamberg as a football team
based on my biased choices to focus on their incompletions rather than
completions.
This is essentially a metaphor for the current
relationship between the press and the presidency. A partisan press naturally can have substantial impacts on
the actions of American voters. Cable
news sources are reflecting their ideological biases by the news they choose to
report and how they report it. According to the Pew Research Center, all types of news outlets covered a similar
news agenda, but their assessment of the nation’s elected officials differed
greatly. Many of the events, topics, and individuals that mainstream media
sources report on are the same, regardless of ideological bias. Yet what each
source chooses to focus on in their feature on the subject differs greatly. From
this it is reasonable to conclude that news sources make unbiased information
partisan.
The American people’s faith in a healthy
democracy can be affected by the tensions that exist in this present relationship between the press and the presidency. Yes, cable news networks and newspaper’s
editorial boards present information with a left- or right-leaning ideological
bias. Journalists are individuals. Humans have a natural tendency to observe
and focus attention on whatever reflects their individual preferences. While
journalist attempt to avoid biased reporting, what one chooses to include in a
story is essentially a reflection of the reporter.
When reporters sharing similar individual
preferences are grouped together under the same network and/or news site, it is
only natural that the information presented leans one way or the other on the ideological spectrum.
The result? A supply of news sources that
appear ideologically biased.
It seems almost second nature in 2017 to assume
that the media has a liberal bias. The Pew
Research Center in 2004 undertook a nationwide survey of 547 local and national
reporters, editors and executives. Only 7% of the press identified as
conservative. What’s even more
concerning for conservatives is that liberal identification
among national press types has shot up from 22 percent in 1995 and continues to rise. Mass brings influence.
The mere presence of more left-leaning journalist will naturally be reflected
in the media.
The lack of variety in credible media choices
on the right produces a general distrust of the media as a whole by
conservatives. In the same study, conservatives reported to distrust 24 of 36
news sources
presented. In contrast, liberals reported that they trust 28 of the 36 sources.
Americans trust sites that mirror their
preferences and views on issues. Lets face it. We like to be right. In psychology this is known as ‘confirmation bias.’ When an individual would like a certain idea to be true, they end
up believing it to be true. To produce favorable results, the individual simply
stops gathering information when the evidence previously gathered confirms the
views that one would like to be true.
Confirmation bias helps to explain why ideologically biased news
sources such as Fox and MSNBC have higher ratings than many neutral sites. Conservatives would rather listen to O’Reilly on Fox than Jon Stewart’s liberal remarks on “The Daily Show.”
Why? Because no one wants to be told they are wrong.
A
Conservative Calling
So why are conservatives not taking action to
eliminate that bias? Don’t just complain about it. Fix it
Perhaps instead of criticizing the media, more
conservatives should venture into the career field. Recent research revealed much more variety in regards to where
left-leaning individuals receive their news. Relevantly similar percentages of
democratic voters reported to receive their news from CNN, MSNBC, NPR, or the
New York Ties. On the other hand, the republican voters surveyed appeared to
cluster solely around Fox.
It all comes back to the ability to make
necessary adjustments. If that small high school in Bamberg, South Carolina
would have refused to open itself to the necessary offensive adjustments, the
team may not have won the semifinals. It is this ability to acknowledge faults
and take action to fix these problems that leads to success.
Similarly, it is not a typical Republican
career to be a journalist. Conservative journalists are highly outnumbered by
those who identify as liberal. For example, a study conducted by the Washington City Paper found that Tony Kornheiser was the only
registered Republican among a sampling of 49 top editors, reporters and
columnists at The Washington Post in the
90’s.
While there is a movement toward independent status among reporters, it is unlikely that a 0% bias will ever exist.
Some news sources are making intentional efforts to include opinions from both
sides of the political spectrum. The New York Times was recently quoted to claim, “Diversity in our ranks is paramount. Diversity — of
gender, race, nationality, sexual orientation, socioeconomic backgrounds
and outlook — is a
moral imperative as well as a necessity for improving our coverage, which, in
turn, will expand our audience.”
News sources that agree with one’s preconceived understandings of
politics reinforce polarized partisan views. By politicizing facts, individuals
that fall heavily on one side of the political spectrum become interested. It
would be a poor business move to ignore the polarized 20% of the population
that Pew Research reports is most likely to be interested in political reporting. Passionate
readers are more likely to continue reading and share news that supports
whatever it is they are passionate about.
However, what is financially favorable for the mainstream media
may not be the most democratically responsible choice for the governments
‘watch dog.’ Is it possible that the media has sparked the high levels of
political polarization in modern America? Maybe.
‘Smash Mouth’ politics?
A full and responsible press should
work to unite Americans by providing credible information from which
individuals can then form their own views. What is essential to recognize is how a continued lack of diplomacy
in American politics could lead to a more divided, less efficient nation. Polarized
politicians and a polarized press bring the undeniable danger of a polarized
public.
Leaders from both sides of the
political spectrum are left with the shared responsibility to legislate.
Theoretically some policies passed should appeal to democrats while other
policies appeal to republicans. Yet, what ends up happening when two
parties are polarized is that neither can agree on any
policy. Ultimately a standstill is created in Washington.
We can think of the current lockdown in
Congress as Barnwell’s offensive line. Barnwell was faced with a strong
defense. The head coach reacted likewise to how congressmen are behaving in
Washington. Barnwell refused to accept that the only way to win this ballgame
would be to throw the ball away from the solid offensive line. Yet by refusing
to make offensive adjustments and accept this change, Barnwell sealed its fate.
Sure, the team stayed true to its game
plan of running the ball. Likewise, congressmen who stick to their ideological
strongholds and refuse to budge do appear authentic. But it is also true that their
stubbornness and inability to accept change leads to little progress. Progress
is made an even more foreign concept when the press gets involved. When
differences between officials on either side of the ideological spectrum are
publicized, it may have a numbing effect on the public. Compromise has started
to appear an illogical and distant idea.
Congressman and senators function as
the head ball coaches for the good ole Team USA. Their inability to work
together as a coherent governmental team is the playbook for poor democracy.
Policy makers create their own ‘smash mouth’ defensive battle when they refuse
to compromise and instead promote their ideological bias more vocally.
In order to pass any type of policy at
this point, politicians must act as Bamberg did. Team USA must make the
necessary adjustments to get what needs to be done, done. Otherwise, congress
will remain with little policy progress and a polarized political environment
will persist. The media? Well, maybe they should just stick to the sidelines.
