In the 21st century, democracy and representation are the cornerstone to our complex society. One would think that these characteristics lead to less marginalization and more communication between social classes, but the entire notion of respectful communication and empathy rests entirely on the concept of courteous discourse. While any reasonable conversation of importance has some aspect of opinion or controversy, the perceived importance and formative stages of political discourse makes it one of the most dominant forces at play in modern times. But political discourse lacks several major characteristics usually present in the discussions individuals have day to day, characteristics necessary for level headed, intelligent discussion that actually has an effect on those involved and keeps our society operational. Imagine a world where every minute argument and dialogue was carried out in the same way most political arguments were. It would be anarchy. It is easy to see why such discussions provoke such a emotional response. Not to generalize, but not only does the revelation of the individuals positions in the discussion broadcast a slew of other related subjects and moral opinions, but the topic is one that has, perceivably, tremendous effect on both individuals lives and futures. Keeping emotion out of politics is like keeping love out of marriage, it is possible, but without it the entire concept seems cold and empty. The omnipresence of emotion in any argument makes the task of conviction that much more daunting.

There is an important distinction between being uninformed and being misinformed. In a hoover institute study on the emotional and logical appeals of the election, it found that millions of citizens may base their policy preferences on false, misleading, or unsubstantiated information that they believe to be true and, frequently, related to one’s political preferences (Hanson). Often citizens get their infodump of news and politics from bias sources pitting both sides against each other, which is far more engaging, and cryptic than getting fewer correct answers from an omniscient source. Factual information is seldom brought into light in the political scene and when it is it is the interpretation of that fact that is argued. We live in a world where factuality and certainty is secondhand to emotional appeal or principle conviction.

A Dartmouth study in 2006 what most mentors and teachers already know from experience, facts do not matter. Trying to convince someone on your side, even when presented with inexcusable evidence proving them wrong, does not work when the opposition is sure in their hearts that their worldview is just. This social phenomenon is referred to as the “Backfire Effect” and the only way to truly combat it and its influences is to understand it. Ignorance cannot be fought with ignorance (Cook). The hardheadedness of the human mind is a fragile weak spot as is, but in the 21st century, with the deluge of unchecked information, extreme opinion and free reign of information, humanity becomes an ideological weapon.

The influx of misinformation has only multiplied exponentially in the short time the internet has manifested and proved itself as the dominant form of communication in the 21st century.The burden of evidence is now on the accused. All this makes the arguments surrounding the topic constantly have an air of falsehood and deception. Social groups and ideologies in the 21st century can rigidly adhere together, circulating the same opinions and unproven stories and never have to face the world as it really is, all while the entire group is under the opinion that this is happening only to the opposition and they are the moral crusaders that need to thwart it.

Community is a crucial thing, humans are social creatures so the need to form bonds with similar people is ingrained in our being. But while communities can form to bring people together to share ideas and promote activism, another form of culture can establish itself out of particular agendas or extreme biases. Normally these communities are diminished and only a fraction of the population but with the internet, any small statement or forum can be the embryo of something far larger. This kind of community, while being the product of nothing but personal choice and alignment, can become a perfect echo chamber of an ideology. Opinions and debates can get morphed and altered so they become their most refined, infectious iteration. Arguments become the worst iteration of themselves and communities become immensely more polarized and isolated, set to fight any form of thought that conflicts with them.

The rise of the self-contained community has long reaching effects far farther than the walls they establish. Instead of being viewed as living, breathing, level headed humans, they're just a roadblock on the path to the ultimate objective, meant to be overcome. This social anomaly is talked about even further in Michael Moore's essay written in October of last year titled “Why Trump Will Win” where he addresses the lack of legitimacy given to the Trump campaign and why that contributed to its expansion and, in his words, inevitable victory. “I can see what you’re doing right now. You’re shaking your head wildly – “No, Mike, this won’t happen!” Unfortunately, you are living in a bubble that comes with an adjoining echo chamber where you and your friends are convinced the American people are not going to elect an idiot for president” (Moore). Even in Moore's supposed unbiased look at the scene, he expresses immense distance and even bewilderment at the support directed to the campaign. Humanity or its quality of communication during the election has not changed, just the methods of broadcasting that communication has. Partisans believe that the other side is not just wrong but stupid. Or, even more malignant to our political dialogue, purposely ignorant with evil intent. (Cook)

All these factors lead to the presidential election in 2016, the worst example of social and political stability and level headedness in the modern day. While there are dozens of major examples from the entire race, the most unnerving example was the discussion coming from and pertaining to the Trump campaign. The overrepresentation of political and social bubbles in this election has lead to not only the formation of ideas in them, but the interaction between them as well. The lack of consideration and empathy towards members of both side of the argument, leading to neither side really understanding anything but their positions stance, is directly what led to the polarization of the campaign and the election of a leader representing a culture that is severely uneducated in the events and opinions of the time, and that no one really knows anything definite about.The world conceived by any one of the countless factions in the discussion is not accurate, by definition in can't be. Liberal extremists think they live in a world where every person's accommodations needs to be met as a human right, and strong emotions constitute facts. This is diametrically opposed by the culture of Trump Supporters that believe they inhabit a world where a misogynist is someone who beats his wife, a racist is someone who goes to lynchings, and sexual assault happens in dark alleys. But, as easy to comprehend as this would be, that is not the world we live in. It is easy to disregard the discomforts of the world as something largely solved, as something that supporters are not part of. While it is idyllic and utopian to think this, that is not what the world is like. Most people have that bubble popped on the journey to adulthood and not popping that bubble doesn't solve racism or misogyny the same way not going to the doctor to look at that bump doesn't prevent you from developing cancer. This social disconnect is the largest reason the recent election was as divided and aligned as it was. Not only is is impossible to convince individuals that what they know as fact is incorrect, completely smashing their entire frame of reference for morality and rationality, but the interpersonal nature of the discussion at hand. When the discussion revolves entirely around the righteousness and fairness of the cause, which invasive arguments always do because it pushes the narrative even further, supporters of the more misinformed side have no choice but to fight, they want their innocence back, and they can't, not ever. It means they're  “doomed”, the argument is literally a battle for their soul, and until one can accept that morality is larger than them, they are incapable of listening

Not only is political discourse imperative to the progress of humanity as a culture, but the frequency groups interact within the larger discussion always reflects how briefed and informed they are. While knowledge and empathy do not always mark the signs of a respectful and manageable discussion, the severe lack of any of those traits in every side of the 2016 presidential election led directly to the isolation and ignorance of the debate. Thomas Jefferson said in the late 1790s that “An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic” (Hoover) And nowhere is that more clear than in the torrent of unjustified, oblivious and downright uninformed citizenry of today.

Works Cited

Moore, Michael. "5 Reasons Why Trump Will Win." MICHAEL MOORE., Oct. 2016. 08 Apr. 2017.

Cook, Allison, et al. “Firing Back at the Backfire Effect: The Influence of Mortality Salience and Nullification Beliefs on Reactions to Inadmissible Evidence.” Law and Human Behavior, vol. 28, no. 4, 2004, pp.   389–410. 26 Mar. 2017

Hanson, Victor David. "Why Trump Won." Hoover Institution. Stanford University, 11 Nov. 2016. 27 Mar. 2017.