Political diligence
I recently took a trip to Washington D.C. There is so much to see and to learn; you cannot hope to cover even half of it in a day’s time. The architecture is rich with neoclassical influence (predominantly Greek and Roman revivals) and esoteric symbolism, such as that embodied in the Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, and, of course, the Capitol.
For all the criticism that our government that claims to be ‘of the people’ is in reality the opposite, I felt it to be surprisingly open and inclusive. I took a tour with an intern of Kevin Mccarthy’s, and was given great insight as to the activities of officials. Granted, I was not told specifically what it was they were working on, but it was enlightening nonetheless.
Those feelings of authoritarianism and separation might be, in fact, from the people’s own doing. Little more than a hundred years ago, a political movement — Progressivism — took root in urban America. This epoch of transparency and popular initiative has had lasting effects on the essentials of our democratic structure. Take, for example, the direct election of senators, or the trademark initiative, referendum, and recall powers. So in America, wherein the government setting encourages much involvement relative to other nations, I attribute the division between the masses and the establishment to ignorance.
The political arena, I would argue, has become more accessible with time. But the same tool which creates awareness contributes to isolation from all things necessary for democratic participation — it’s entertainment via a screen. It’s this amazing disease of entertainment-or-bust, that itching desire to open another tab and flip through fun. The more people fill their minds with trivialities, the more they are distanced from educating themselves, and in turn, the educated (the establishment). The “Information Age” is such an irony; we have libraries of insight in our pockets, yet fail miserably to capture their full potential. In everybody’s haste, topics which merit consideration and understanding are compacted into their most convenient phrases, inducing polarity and impulsiveness.
No doubt the avenues of media have inflamed the two-party system, evidence of the polarity. Before this century people, because of the way they received information, were compelled to read about it, and mull it over — less imagery (literally), and less of a reactionary culture. But now so many ideas are thrown into one of two melting pots for the slightest partisan implication, obscuring their real value to society and fueling ignorant sentiment. Apologies for the digression, but so many modern faults originate from the above. And it’s frustrating that it can’t be verified statistically, only felt.
Contributing to the disgust of everything political is our news industry, symbolically a collection of brands which satisfy the confirmation bias of certain groups. There is lack of positivity, and lack of trust, and therefore many become detached in a way similar to the expressions of Holden Caulfield from ‘The Catcher in the Rye.’ Again, the majority of networks appeal to an easy understanding, a most efficient transfer of emotion through headline and “balanced” analysis.
So in a culture of stereotype and fragmentary communication, it is critical for us to dismiss a simple, hate or love perception of our government. We must investigate and develop a fresh consciousness, with opinions that consider multiple perspectives. Witnessing the nation’s capital and observing the complexities of a federal occupation gave me a sense of respect and the desire, not merely to scan the headlines, but to research the specific actions of officials and the logic behind them.