It's definitely not a popular position. Just take a look at Twitter and you'll see people from both sides nearly calling for the death of the other. While not super surprising I've seen little discussion around the fact that your chances of being fired for supporting one of the candidates (you can guess who) publicly are pretty good. Especially when you work in the tech field.
Which to me is really interesting because it shows a side of politics that I've personally not seen before. This election has permeated all institutions and if you're not on the right side you're going to have a bad time.
> you'll see people from both sides nearly calling for the death of the other
Not to sound too tinfoilhatter, but this is exactly what you would want the masses to behave like as a politician. Neither candidate gives two shits about you me or anyone who isn't part of the ruling elite, they're just in it for the power.
It's exactly how populists want the voters to think and behave.
They nurture and encourage distrust, anger, aggression. And use it to fuel enthusiasm and support for themselves.
You see this pattern often in history.
When holding an elected office, this kind of separation is a big problem, because it necessarily seeps into political entities (parlaments, senates, congress) and makes collaboration hard.
I don't believe that the occurrence of an election is itself causation at work.
The reason it seems that way, to me, is the same reason that abused women tend to step out of their shame when they see other women doing it, or when their anger is kindled into a flame that exceeds their fear. People feel empowered when they realize they're not alone (edit: and someone they identify as a peer has given a voice to their own beliefs, experiences or feelings)
Sometimes, that feeling of empowerment makes them speak up. Sometimes it makes them lash out. It's an unfortunate coincidence that a presidential candidate is directly responsible for catalyzing both groups of people into responding so passionately today.
Realistically, I believe that the electorate has felt disenfranchised (using the more general "deprived of a voice" definition) for many years now, and for various reasons. A republic such as ours can never have an electorate that, in its entirety, feels like their voices are heard. I don't know how to help that; I don't think anyone does.
Dividing the electorate further isn't the solution for any leader. Inciting them to illegal or violent behavior isn't the solution either, unless you aim to dismantle a democratic republic.
I've always felt "us-vs-them", and I believe everyone has, because my peer group has ideals different from others. So we find other groups that share them, and we try harder to be heard, or to exert the influence that the framework of our republic grants to us (i.e. voting) or that society grants to us (i.e. boycotting).
But I do not believe the election itself has caused a divide, it's the candidates (yes, one more than any other, but all have contributed) whose rhetoric has amplified a divide that was there all along.
Thank you for putting it into more and clearer words than I did.
You're right, the divide has always been there. That's why it always flares up during elections - it's only during elections that the divide is useful to the people who stoke it. Candidates benefit from their electorate being loud and vocal and at arms with the other electorate. It drives press, it drives news, it brings people out to vote. All things correlated with winning an election.
Once an election is won, the game changes. Then it's all about unity and compromise and understanding one another. Because that's what those in power need to stay in power.
Unless of course somebody wants to force an early election or worse. Then all bets are off.
Now, I can't say for a fact that this is how the cycle works in the US. But I've seen it play out numerous times in my home country (Slovenia) where for a period of more than a decade since I started observing, I don't think we had a single government last the entire 4 years. It's a big part of the reason why I left and came to the States.
And I find myself once more in the midst of elections driven primarily by shit up stirring. Perfect.
> And I find myself once more in the midst of elections driven primarily by shit up stirring. Perfect.
All I can say is this: you're not wrong that the media coverage of our candidates amplify their voices, which empowers their supporters to amplify theirs as well. And you're not wrong that this election cycle has more shit-slinging than any other in my memory. It's thus made me more than a little uncomfortable, as an American, to ponder what others think of our society. It's embarrassing to me, it truly is.
But here is hope, and even thought you've arrived just in time for this circus of an election, I hope you can find the will to believe that the future is not doomed. Not because the leadership requires unity and compromise, but because once the spotlights shining their attention-focusing beams are turned off, there won't be such a contrast with the more rational among us. I believe many people will have learned that the isolation between ideological extremes doesn't help to move us forward as a society. And many will try, in their own quiet and subtle ways, to effect a positive change.
I'll be honest though: I believe these things not because there is a preponderance of evidence to support them (there's some, but this election cycle is unprecedented) but because I have to believe it to have the energy to try and effect that positive change.
Which to me is really interesting because it shows a side of politics that I've personally not seen before. This election has permeated all institutions and if you're not on the right side you're going to have a bad time.