The main idea of this article can basically be summarized into one sentence, and it is that no one wants to hear opinions that is of the contrary to their own. Therefore, it is nearly impossible to convince someone of your ideas simply by disagreeing with them. Not only will that not work, but it will also create a defensive state of mind within that person, and that psychological mindset will push them further away from you and your message as a whole.

The authors bought up the analogy of picking colored pants. I personally cannot entirely agree with that analogy. Instead, I would like to offer an alternative analogy that is similar to the one that the authors portrayed. Imagine writing a research paper or conducting a persuasive speech. It is more convincing, in my opinion, to include multiple opposition’s points of view and debunk their claims in our writings or speeches with credible resources, or better, statistical data to prove that we are in the right and that they are, in fact, in the wrong. This approach is a much more effective way of conveying messages than just writing strictly in favor of your own position or stance on the topic.

Unfortunately, this is precisely our current state of the political climate because our media outlets have their own political alignment or agendas that they would like to push. Because of that, they would favor portraying an opinionated narrative and twisted facts that fit into their political alignment rather than providing us with the full story from both sides of the aisle and facts so we, the audiences, can make decisions for ourselves.

For example, on immigration, the liberal wing of Congress would favor in support to expand immigration because it expands humanitarian opportunities to those people from poorer countries and provides them with a shot at the American Dream. In contrast, the conservative wing of Congress would instead favor tightening immigration because there might be an influx of immigrants that might dilute our already shrinking and weakening job market. I am sure that everyone has their own opinions on this particular topic. However, if we bring ourselves beyond and above the scopes of that political partisanship and media biases, do both sides of the aisle have a valid point?

Of course, speaking from the liberal wing of the Congress, we should extend all necessary aid to help people to immigrate to the U.S from the less advantageous and war-torn countries. If they have an expertise that we desperately need, that makes the deal even better. Similarly, if we speak from the conservative wing of the Congress, we should, by all means, prioritize securing jobs for Americans first. It is not really that conservatives are racist; it is basically a simple supply and demand issue. When more people fight for the same jobs, it will definitely result in fewer jobs to grab in the market.

With that said, in this regard, what is the duty of journalists and media outlets? In my honest opinion, the media should prioritize their reporting on why the liberals and conservatives feel that way and encourage meaningful discussions. Then, actively pursue facts and provide data that supports both sides of the argument. Finally, and most importantly, try to reach a compromise and find some middle ground between the two sides. Unfortunately and regrettably, I have to say that I have not seen any of that happening. Therefore, unless both sides stop spitting and smearing dirty tricks at each other, our political polarization will continue. We can only hope for this day that we can finally sit down and talk about the issues through the scope of a bipartisan lens, and I genuinely hope that it is not at the signing of an armistice.

Responses to the professor or other students:

Response #1: I just want to send a quick reply to say that I agree with you that our current state of the political climate simply allows no room for gray areas. It is always portrayed as a black and white issue, and quite frankly speaking, nothing in our society is black and white. Although, I do believe it is the media’s duty to lower the temperatures by issuing the same amount of criticism among both sides of the aisle rather than inciting division by smearing the opposition. You know, these past couple of days, I have been thinking about what Professor Rivera said during class about centric viewpoints not being popular. I really do not believe that it is an impossible task. I believe the late-night comedy shows are good for getting those centric ideas across. However, we just do not have that many centric late-night comedy hosts in this day and age. If only we had more centrists comedy hosts that could connect with both the older and the younger demographics. At the end of the day, it is not about what you say; it is about how you say it.

Response #2: I really like your conclusion that people should keep an open mind to opposing views while also maintaining a high degree of respect for opinions that we don’t particularly agree with. This reminds me of a movie that I watched a couple of years ago. I don’t recall the movie’s name, but the story took place during our country’s westward expansion era. We have expanded things too quickly and too soon during that period, and public safety could not be guaranteed. And therefore, banks were robbed regularly. The movie was about how the town residents took public safety into their own hands by arming themselves and defending their assets in their banks and fighting off three dreadful bandits. Although this movie was fictional at best, it really showcased the distinctiveness of the American style of unity and the common defense ideology. This ideology basically translates into that, even though I might have less at stake than my neighbor in the town’s bank. We both took arms equally to protect everyone’s assets in the bank for the common good. For if I don’t do that, my own asset security is also at risk. I protect my neighbor’s assets, for which they are equally protecting mine. This idea, quite frankly, is precisely the mindset that we need to have to resolve our political differences. Because, yes, I might not like what you say or what you do, but I will fight to protect your freedom to say it. Because if I do not protect you, my own freedom of speech is equally likely to be trampled upon later, and at that time, there will be no one left to protect me.