The news coming out of Butler, Pennsylvania on Saturday felt like a scene out of a movie or what one would find in history books.
A former president—and current presidential candidate—the target of an attempted assassination just days ahead of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. It didn’t take long for a photo of former president Donald Trump to circulate across the news and through social media. Surrounded by Secret Service agents, blood on his face and fist raised in the air before being whisked away. While the former president had minimal injuries, two others were wounded and one person was killed on Saturday. Corey Comperatore, a firefighter, gave up his own life to shield his wife and daughter from the bullets.
We don’t think we’re alone in feeling like the political rhetoric in our country has increased in temperature over the past few years. No longer is it enough for people to disagree on issues of policy and politics, but rather there is a need to dehumanize others. We could spend the remainder of this editorial recounting instances within the past several years of political violence and violent rhetoric in the United States, and there are many which can be found on either side of the political aisle. To what end, though?
The truth of the matter is, we are not as different as we think. According to a study released in 2023 by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, American voters are less ideologically polarized than they think they are, and that misperception is greatest for the most politically engaged people.
“Most partisans hold major misbeliefs about the other party’s preferences that lead them to think there is far less shared policy belief,” reads the report. “This perception gap is highest among progressive activists, followed closely by extreme conservatives: in other words, the people who are most involved in civic and political life hold the least accurate views of the other side’s beliefs.”
While American voters may not be as ideologically polarized as we might think, American politicians are “highly ideologically polarized” according to the report and have very little overlap.
“It is easy to assume that polarized voters are selecting more polarized leaders,” reads the report. “However, that is not the main story. The process begins long before voters get a choice: more ideologically extreme politicians have been running for office since the 1980s.”
If the typical American voter has more in common with each other, but the American politician does not, what can we do to tone things down?
It needs to start on the local, grassroots level. We would like to believe it’s quite common, especially on the local level, for people of differing political viewpoints to be able to agree on at least some issues. In fact, we would present our own Platte Valley as an example.
Despite the inflammatory rhetoric thrown about at the national—and sometimes state—level, it seems rather common for people in our community to be able to sit down and have a civil conversation with each other. Sure, there are bound to be disagreements on policy issues and social issues as, according to the Carnegie Endowment of International Peace, American voters are far more emotionally polarized than they are politically polarized.
We encourage the use of the late Senator Mike Enzi’s 80/20 rule. While this rule, primarily, was used for budget negotiations we believe it also works for engaging in discussion with your neighbor who might have a different political leaning. You might just find you have more in common than you think.
Reader Comments(0)