We, the American center, are under attack from both the left and the right. The extremes on both sides claim that we have no firm principles and believe that we do not care about the future of our country and the world in general.
They dominate the conversations on social media and believe that this is the only solid land that’s really important. They see us as few in number. More likely, we’re the majority in the middle. We just avoid being the loudest in the room or the first to comment, and that’s a problem for us “middle” Americans.
In today’s world, loud shouts and quick retorts dominate the reporting of political and social issues. It doesn’t matter that there is no deep thought or reflection in the words hurled or accusations made. In many cases, the speakers and writers have no real desire to light a candle of understanding. They simply want to burn everything down – the roof, the walls, the very foundation.
They’re easy to spot. Look for the people who shout everyone else down – the people who label compromise as surrender and any pause for reflection as a lack of commitment.
We average Americans have done our best to ignore them, believing them to be a passing societal ill, a minor pothole on our unsteady path to a more perfect union. But unlike in our favorite Hollywood westerns, the sheriff to disperse the online mobs hasn’t arrived yet. And since this is an election year, we can expect even more online outrage.
Jeffrey Hart, professor of political science at Indiana University, writes in his book Essays on the history and politics of the Internet: Cyberpolitics“The inventors of the Internet shared a common vision of creating a system that would enable people all over the world to share their knowledge and creativity.” However, financial considerations were in the background.
In addition to the potential to connect and inform millions of people, companies also saw social media as an opportunity to generate billions of dollars.
Digital strategy consultant Colin Delaney explains on the online website epolitics.com: “Platforms designed to prioritize engagement over truth naturally favor sensationalism and extremes, and conspiracy theories and disinformation thrive when there is no mechanism to filter the content.”
Traditional media (radio and television news broadcasts, newspapers and news magazines) would normally take on some of this filtering function, but the Internet and social media have now diverted large parts of their audiences, reducing their resources and influence.
The truth, says Delaney, is that “people found it as easy to use (Mark) Zuckerberg’s baby to organize a riot … as they did to organize a happy hour.”
For our American democracy, Hart believes, the Internet has created some brand new centers of power and influence, and some of them, he believes, are undemocratic. All of this has made many Americans more cynical about democracy in their own country.
For years, Pew Research has studied our social media use in detail. After studies in 2020 and 2022, Pew researchers concluded that more than half (64%) of Americans believe social media has had a negative impact on democracy. And not only that: “79% of Americans believe that access to the internet and social media has made people more divided in their political opinions… 69% of Americans say the internet and social media have made people talk less politely about politics.”
The University of Michigan came to a similar conclusion when it surveyed 1,800 people during the 2020 election. Lead researcher Ariel Hasell believes the root cause is people’s distrust of the political process. For her, cynicism “goes further than healthy skepticism because it involves a blanket rejection of people and processes in democracy, as well as the underlying belief that politicians are guided by corrupt, selfish, personal interests and do not serve the common good.”
The more people were exposed to political attacks on social media, the more cynical and angry they became, the Michigan study found.
In short, vitriolic commentary on social media is contributing to the alienation of democracy and undermining people’s faith in our institutions. It’s a nasty internet world out there, and as November approaches, it’s only going to get worse.
Thank God Jesus is not on the ballot. Social media political zealots from the farthest corners of the political spectrum would shoot him with every weapon they had.
From the right: “He disrupted the activities of a house of worship, he spent too much time talking about ‘turning the other cheek’ and he dined with the people who were least likely to go to church.”
From the left: “He has sat down with tax collectors. He is too soft on forcing the rich to pay their fair share, and he does not stand up for marginalized sexual minorities.”
Do the loudest voices, spurred on by the cynical narratives of social media, always have to win? No, but they cannot be ignored. Nor can they be allowed to dominate the political debate.
In a democracy like ours, where citizens elect their politicians and control their destiny, we in the middle, the quieter voices, must now also bear a greater burden of verifying our sources of information.
It is not enough to read a newspaper, listen to a newscast, or rely on the opinion of a neighbor. As consumers of news, we must become more active in educating ourselves about our world and who will lead us.
We must not only read what is written and proposed, but also understand it – not only hear what is said, but also pay attention to what is meant. And this is perhaps the most difficult thing: once we understand our options, we must be willing to compromise.
This is not an easy task, but a necessary one if survival as a nation is our goal.
This essay is part of our opinion series “The American Middle” and confirms that being a good citizen requires hard work and calm.
We welcome your opinion in a letter to the editor. Read the guidelines and Send your letter hereIf you have any problems with the form, you can send it by email to the following address: [email protected]
