Research from Wendt Family Professor of Political Science Morris Fiorina shows that the American public is not more politically polarized than it was in 1976, despite the apparent polarization of party candidates.
The loudest complaint is that journalists, politicians, academics etc. share a set of shibboleths that taint everything that they discuss or write about.
My concern is that somehow our politics has come to a stage where when we lose or face defeat we immediately move to these extreme options. What does it mean for our democracy that when we disagree with our president, we move to secede?
Clickbait articles, however innocuous, however annoying, may have impacts far beyond a few wasted minutes. Indeed, clickbait articles bait more than our attention—they bait our subconscious.
Most of all, many were disappointed about being forced to pick between two candidates they perceived as unethical liars. An election where many failed to find a good choice bred disillusionment and disenchantment.
Consider that every election you yourself have and will continue to vote against someone’s vital interests. No policy comes without some moral cost. We live in a country of 300 million people, all with different values and a stake in the election.
Super Tuesday columnists Aimee Trujillo ’15 and Johnathan Bowes ’15 debate the politics of the drought. Trujillo demands compromise, while Bowes necessitates that the smelt accepts the brunt of that compromise.
As the partisan divides in American society continue to deepen, a team of Stanford researchers has developed an algorithm demonstrating the process behind that polarization — and created Internet-based social systems to counter the trend.