Social media stokes the flames of division

In light of last week’s horrific attack on a Congressional GOP baseball game practice, we scarcely saw the afternoon set in before the ugly stench of the political blame game began to swamp the news and internet comments. It’s an unfortunate development for progressives that the shooter, James Hodgkinson, who was shot dead at the scene by Capitol Hill police, happened to be left leaning and a past volunteer of the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign. The American right has now seized on the chance to blame the American left in its entirety for the attack. Wannabe activist Laura Loomer has herself capitalized on the shooting, when after her disruption of a showing of the New York play Julius Caesar, alleged that the left and specifically Rachel Maddow was somehow responsible for the acts of Hodgkinson. She has put forth a number of arguments, all based on logical fallacies, alleging the left is disproportionately guilty of political violence, ignoring episodes of right wing political violence, such as Greg Gianforte’s assault of Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs, for merely asking questions.

(Note: Mr. Gianforte has received a sentence for his offense so light, a slap on the wrist doesn’t adequately describe it. He then called for “civility in politics”, exactly the kind of civility he’s failed to display.)

But even if we practice suspension of disbelief towards Loomer’s nasally ramblings, we also know that the American left isn’t entirely, or even significantly, to blame. Gianforte just being the tip of the iceberg, the American right also has its baggage. The equally tragic, equally horrid tragedy that was the shooting of Rep. Gabbie Giffords was perpetrated by an equally loony, equally mean spirited right wing extremist. It is true that some liberals interpreted the event as a fault of right wing politics, particularly those coming out of the Tea Party. Chris Cillizza of CNN explained how there is more than enough finger pointing to go around when the country tries to make sense of an increasingly divided and hateful national climate.

Where did this new brand of hatred towards the other side begin to take hold? I recall that around the election season of 2004, we had a similarly divided American electorate. There were passionate and heated exchanges of ideas and indignation over very salient issues at the time, not least of which being Bush’s 2003 Invasion of Iraq. But as much political hatred as there was to go around (and I remember it from both sides very well), it didn’t seem quite as jarring as what we’re seeing today.

Personally, I blame social media. Social media has enabled the every day American to take in mountains and mountains of information that confirms their own way of looking at the world. Social media simultaneously enables people to phase out and completely disregard news articles or the like from outlets that are perceived to have an agenda different from that of the person. This is why we all recall some experience in which we cite a given article only to have the other person scoff it off entirely because it came from a news source they don’t like.

So no, the culprit is not political and social alienation brought about by say, economic globalization, the likes of which has actually made many middle class Westerners better off. The culprit is that in the age where internet profiles, apps, and specially tailored news stories abound, everyone is their own personal newspaper, political party, moral authority on matters of economics or social policy that they’ve not expertise in.

Some call this diffusion of journalism a new golden age of individual media consumption. I call it the direct source of all this political division.