Polit-what the fr-ic

Polit(what the fr)ic

Hello blog it’s Brooklynn. Yes, this isn’t a vlog, but at this point I was at a loss for how to introduce this topic and just thought I would dive right in, cut to the chase, jump off a cliff… you get the jist.

What brings me out of this silence was the drawing to a close of the impeachment trials. Was that last week? I think so…, but you see I’m busy and my attention is sporadic and I thought maybe better late than never. What I’ve learned from the conclusion of the trials is how deeply American culture likes to group things. The gray area in between is what’s frightening and often times misunderstood, and going against this grain of societal precedents is what is deemed as worthy of attention. Politics is simply a reflection of the culture of the times. 

This claim may seem a little bland because, yes, politicians are people that are elected into office to represent the views that we share – views that are, rather heavily, influenced by the culture of today. However, I’d venture to say that in the past four years, politics and politicians have not completely caught up.

So much of your basic politics seems to be revolved around which party you identify with and which views you hold on certain societal issues such as health care, abortion, or climate change. The truth is, only one of those things matters – what you believe in. In no scenario should anyone be forced to conform to a party. The two party system seems to only simplify your options, but in actuality, it pits one side against the other; and, when greed and ambition are factored in, only leads to disaster. Granted, as whole, politicians get a bad reputation because of the few who do follow that slippery slope downward, but these stereotypes emerge because they are somewhat based in fact. They create this generalization of a politician – someone who wants to do good and can’t accomplish anything, someone who has been bought out by major corporations and is simply doing their bidding to get re elected. All of these perceptions emerge because in there are specific people we can point to for each stereotype. 

And in this general persona of modern politics, there seems an understanding that a politician is either fiercely democrat or fiercely republican, or pro Trump or anti Trump, causing the humanity of politics to be lost. Each person is voting for the party that they belong to, generally speaking, which makes sense (you typically belong to a party because you align with most of their ideological platform). However, part of me wonders how much each politician weighs his or her party when it comes down to casting their vote. It seems to me like a common case of peer pressure. If you don’t vote one way another, often time it could cost you the next election cycle. Not to forget that while all this is playing out in our government buildings, the media is able to portray it with varying levels of fact, pitting one side against the other and turning politics into a middle school cafeteria. 

I say middle school cafeteria because in middle school you know more people. Cliques still overlap at this point and information still spreads like a disease. By the time you get to high school, hell, we don’t even sit in the cafeteria (when did sitting on the floor become cool? I’m still baffled). In high school everyone has formed their own clique typically based on extracurriculars and the information is walled up in that group. Middle schoolers are less mature than high schoolers (for the most part) and this is my main point. 

Before Trump took office I think I was too young to really be concerned about any aspect of politics. Therefore, the increased tension that is being broadcasted by the parties is what I’ve seen as relatively normal, but my understanding is it wasn’t always like this. As a kid, I don’t remember Obama being critiqued in the news everyday the way Trump is, but Trump brought with him something new to the whitehouse. Trump has not been a promoter of much social change (and I think that’s a statement that can be agreed upon regardless). He won the office with a campaign that wasn’t afraid to say something insulting or controversial – he said whatever he wished and twitter was his output. And for the most part, I think he’s continued this. This methodology of salandering people that are different than you seems to have been normalized these four years and it’s alienating people. Nobody wants to hear constant reports of politicians engaged in petty arguments. They want progress, in some cases, no matter what the cost, and now-a-days the cost seems to be just that – attacks from one side to the other about who knows what. 

These attacks are focused on and generally based along party lines – and that’s the problem. No more do we see politicians behind the mask of “democrat” or “republican”. No longer can we see their humanity…

…which is what brings us to Mitt Romney.

I think what struck me here initially was speech. I’ve linked it here if you wish to read the transcript or watch it. Mitt Romney brings humanity back into politics. The United States is a country with a Christian majority (65% as of 2019) and Romney nods to his “oath before God” which guided his vote. Romney represents Utah in congress – a state where 62% of the population is Mormon. Mormonism is often times seen as a strict religion and an oath to God is something that is taken seriously. He let his humanity and oath to God take precedent to his party allegiances. Was it an easy decision for him? Definitely not. But what’s important to notice is that in his speech, he predicts how his decision to vote in favor of one count of Trump’s impeachment trial would be used against him by members of his own party. Romney was able to separate out Trump’s actions from which party he belonged to and that’s what’s important. So much of politics is following a party or a candidate for what they believe, however I believe what they believe is just as important as who they are as a person which is why I have an aversion towards Trump. Politicians are supposed to be leaders of our democracy and if leaders were to act that way in other setting it wouldn’t be tolerated. 

I digress. Back to Romney.

Romney didn’t let the pressure of his party decide his vote. He is an individual in a nation where I was taught individualism was valued. The response by others seems to call that into question. In a country where times and the narratives of the citizens are constantly changing, the themes simply aren’t. Washington advised against the two party system but feuds by Jefferson and Hamilton helped to initiate the system we rely on today. Immigration discrimination has always been an issue – be it the Africans when they were first forced off the Dutch ships in 1619, Catholics in the 1700s and 1800s, the Eastern Europeans and Jews in the 1800s, the Chinese in the 1800 and 1900s, to the Mexican immigrants now (I find this all ironic considering none of us our natives to this land – even the native Americans that first settled the land). Every other decade we initiate social change and yet we still aren’t to a point of equality. Pessimistic? Maybe, but progress is relative. 

In politics we haven’t much progressed. If anything, we have dug deeper into the hole that the two party system is and in no way have given ourselves a clear way of getting out of it. However, with each new generation, society has trended towards the acceptance of individualism and appreciation of those who are different than us. Each generation seems to be attempting to right those wrongs of the past. Our politics hasn’t moved past that though. Our politicians seem to be stuck in the same box they always have been whereas the world is moving forward. No longer are we simply black or white, male or female, gay or straight. We are multi-racial, multi-ethnic – stronger in our diversity. And now for my plug for gay club.

I am not gay. I just want to put that out there. But my friend is president of gay club, and during block lunch she was trying to get others to come to the meeting (gays are inclusive, you see, they welcome everybody) and so I said that I would go next week and she bet that I wouldn’t. So of course I went. It was entertaining and educational as well. I was informed of all the different types of LGBTQ+ people who make up that diverse community by way of which flag represents them. (In case you were wondering, there is a straight ally flag. It’s black and white striped. Sorta like a prison uniform. And so our dear president of gay club goes “See? It’s because you are imprisoned by your heterosexuality!” anyways back to the point…) I was unaware that there were so many types of sexualities and sexual preferences that had been defined, and I felt my eyes opening to a community that I had narrowed in mind. I feel like some people are this way with politics – especially the younger generations. Their minds have been tainted by the polarization that the media has crafted – isolating the two groups and not presenting the shades of purple that are in between the reds of republicans and blues of democrats. 

As a society it seems that we are progressing towards the inclusivity that appreciates the diversity that our population represents. The ideas of being opened minded and not boxing yourself into a singular hole are ever present… with the exception of politics. With politics it seems you are either one or the other when moderates are going to be our saving grace. Mitt Romney proved it’s possible to take a step forward with his conscious even if it meant a theoretical step back with his party loyalties. I hope he has started a wave where humanity is put before party alliances. 

Because after all, humanity is the one thing we all have in common.