For years now, my dad and I have maintained — or should I say tried to maintain — an ongoing correspondence about politics from our respective sides of the world. As I moved away from the United States, my understanding of the political spectrum began to change. Gone were the intellectual confines imposed by a two-party system. Instead, I found myself learning about the intertwined histories of democracy and industrialization and the long battle to extent both political and economic rights to the public. But how do you talk to your Dad about politics when your perspectives differ so much?
The United States is so convinced of its own meritocratic value that it refuses to even consider the notion of class.
One of my first culture shocks came when my European history professor explained how each social class had experienced the two world wars, demonstrating how socio-economic realities still very much influenced life outcomes. Suddenly, what I had never been able to explain through the lens of mainstream American politics — a country so convinced of its own meritocratic value that it refuses to even consider the notion of class — had an explanation. It certainly felt refreshing to go beyond binary political thinking.
But my Dad — who had grown up in the context of the Cold War and the “Red Scare” propaganda that came with it — just could not engage with this perspective. America’s two-party system very much limits one’s conceptual possibilities. This is without even mentioning the fact that the country’s historical isolationism tends to keep many of its citizens linguistically and culturally ignorant about the rest of the world. Engrained in him, like many of the boomer generation, is the notion of American exceptionalism based on equality of opportunity.
Over the years, I’ve witnessed my Dad fall deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole of reactionary politics, scapegoating and watered-down debate.
This makes the idea that there might be structural forces at play that offer economic opportunities to some while keeping others down a hard pill to swallow. (The boomers — who actually grew up in context of high taxes on the wealthy, a moderately sized welfare state and substantial public investment — also remain largely unaware of their exceptional economic circumstances). During our exchanges, my Dad would initially send me articles by conservative academics from The Hoover Institution who, while I disagreed with their views, I could at least respect for their scholarship.
Over the years, though, I’ve witnessed him fall deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole of reactionary politics, scapegoating and watered-down debate fueled by alternative right-wing media — not necessarily “the alt-right” but not always far from it — that is completely detached from any real political theory or academic understanding. It felt like talking to a brick wall. Unfortunately, I think this is indicative of wider trends in the United States in particular that I — having spent the majority of my adult years outside of the country — would like to try to shed some light on.
The Problem with Mainstream Media…
Although media outlets have long attempted to portray themselves as “neutral” entities with the goal of informing the public, the reality is that the media we consume today is far from politically neutral. The most obvious manifestation of this has to do with private ownership or, put differently, the fact that major media outlets tend to be owned by well-connected, high-net worth individuals or families. While this does not mean that media outlets might outright ban the discussion of certain subjects (although it does happen, especially within the context of government repression), this does mean that politically sensitive issues might be framed in a way that protects media owners’ interests.
Major media outlets tend to be owned by well-connected, high-net worth individuals or families.
Other changes that take place “behind the scenes” can also reflect the media that we end up consuming. The monopolization of the media industry by a select few has contributed to the “death” of local news. This means that journalists need to appeal to a larger and larger reader base. In doing so, they often “water down” local concerns or particularities, not to mention the fact that they “de-politicize” issues in order to keep a diverse array of readers satisfied. Much like how our prevailing political parties often attempt to attract as many voters as possible (known in political science as “catch-all parties“), media outlets attempt to do so as well with their intended audience.
The frustration for many that is thus born out of mainstream media — that has become, frankly, rather bland and unidimensional — is absolutely warranted. I, too, am frustrated by its rigidity, not to mention the cut-throat nature of the journalistic industry in which (let’s be honest) nepotism runs rampant. When I talk to my Dad about the media, we can at least agree on that. With the industry’s many barriers in place, it is of little surprise that “content creators” (including myself) have become more and more commonplace. They effectively fill the intellectual gap caused by the “cartelization” of mainstream media. But maybe this is precisely why the West has even witnessed a rise in polarization in the first place.
Politically sensitive issues might be framed in a way that protects media owners’ interests.
When citizens feel less and less represented not only by their political parties, but by the media they consume, they naturally turn to “alternative” parties and news sources that are all too happy for the increase in support. However, content creation is still a business, lest we forget, which means that in order to compete not only with other content creators, but the media industry as a whole, these creators need to rely more and more on shock factor. Many who call themselves “citizen journalists” may also have little experience with research or adhering to certain journalistic ethics. Even worse, they may outright ignore them, taking advantage of growing levels of mistrust to create sensationalist-bordering-on-reactionary content in order to keep their readers or viewers engaged.
Down, Down, Down the Rabbit Hole
Admittedly, content creators on both sides of the spectrum use dramatization or “scare tactics” to keep their audiences entertained, although they differ in their approach. Nonetheless, the advent of the Internet has also meant that consumers of either left or right-leaning content tend to stay in their ideological, self-reinforcing bubbles. This means that consumers of such content are less and less exposed to arguments or facts from the other side, especially on social media platforms that rely on algorithms. This is particularly dangerous within the context of the United States, in which Americans are already physically (and thus intellectually) isolated from one another.
What this means is that it has become easier than ever to go down the alternative right-wing media rabbit hole — spearheaded by commenters such as Ben Shapiro or Matt Walsh of The Daily Wire or Jordan Peterson or the many talking heads of PragerU — with very few means of getting out. As you might have guessed, this has made taking to my Dad about politics genuinely difficult. And this is because, as I have learned from the content he has sent me over the years, modern conservative media spaces in the US — essentially “echo chambers” — rely on the following tactics:
- They endow “intellectual laziness”. What do I mean by this? They essentially encourage their readers to divert their attention away from more formal political or economic understanding, by reading classical texts or academic articles, for example. They also personally attack modern academics or experts or politicians with opposing views in order to discredit them as individuals, thus discouraging potential readers from even attempting to engage with their ideas. And how do they manage to do this?
- They appeal to the idea of “insider knowledge”. They almost always poise themselves as the “real experts” on the matter, despite a lack of — or at the very least questionable — credentials. They do this by taking advantage of the general rise in mistrust, which, again, allows them to blame and thus discredit other, opposing experts. They then promise their readers something unique that they only can get by reading their content, which they depict as “the real deal” or “the truth”. This “truth” is almost always disguised as someone’s personal stance on the matter, which they then use to shut down any debate.
- This allows them to appeal to consumers’ ego. They make consumers of their content feel intelligent without actually educating them. They do this by reducing complex, multi-faceted political or economic issues into bite-sized chunks without any nuance. They, again, do this by blaming the issue on some outside actor or scapegoat, almost always the opposing side, which they blame for the entirety of the problem (“It’s the fault of the government!”, “It’s those democrats!”, “It’s the LGBTQ+ community!”). This also has the added advantage of ignoring wider institutional factors that contribute (and are more likely to explain) the issue at hand.
- Finally, they rely on emotions to reinforce the cycle. This “rage bait” serves multiple purposes: one, it offers simple explanations to complex issues, which strokes consumers’ ego by making them feel like they have “insider knowledge”. This “insider knowledge” is then used as a substitute for genuine intellectual discovery — which might lead them to other conclusions — as it depicts personal arguments or theories as “established facts”. Next, it dehumanizes the “other” by dividing people into “us vs them”, reinforcing feelings of mistrust. This sense of mistrust then pushes consumers right back into these conservative spaces, which “invites” them back in with this emotion-driven content. More specifically, this content is fear or anxiety-inducing, inducing a spike in adrenaline, which is what keeps consumers coming back for more.
We should never forget that conservative content creators much like their journalistic counterparts are in the business of making money, primarily through advertisements. In a modern context, this means that further economic and political division actually serves the interests of conservative content creators, as this is what their business model thrives on. What’s more, this division is only made possible by the larger socio-economic context that the United States finds itself in. Wealth inequality, urban sprawl, a lack of trust in government and a stringent consensus culture has resulted in a perfect storm of isolation, self-censorship and division. This has made engaging with the abstract “other” — who in the past might have been your neighbor, colleague or friend — feel practically impossible. And this, indeed, is why it is so difficult to talk to your Dad about politics.
Should you Talk to Your Dad about Politics?
After once witnessing my Dad throw a tantrum because he could not accept that “capitalism” and “the economy” were not the same thing, I started to accept the fact that maybe my efforts would better be spent elsewhere. Most Boomers truly struggle to understand the economic reality — not to mention the very real existential threats — that most young people now face. Having grown up in a context of unprecedented economic growth — again due to public policy — their access to wealth, relatively speaking, has reinforced their belief that financial success is available to all.
This content offers simple explanations to complex issues, which strokes consumers’ ego by making them feel like they have “insider knowledge”.
Unsurprisingly, this has also given rise to a generation, especially of men, with rather large egos. Alternative right-wing media absolutely capitalizes on this, fueling the ego of men like my Dad while at the same time appealing to their “nostalgic” vision of the America of their youth. It does so by blaming the downfall of the United States on whichever “other” is easiest, providing convenient answers that don’t question the status-quo or their readers’ place in the hierarchy. Worse still, this type of media profits off of many of the socially destructive forces that attracts their audience in the first place — inequality, job insecurity, loneliness, the “culture wars”, etc. — in order to keep them coming back. (There is, therefore, little push to actually improve these factors because if we did, we would perhaps have to re-evaluate our political and economic system.)
Instead, almost all problems are blamed on “the government” or “the Democrats” or “the lack of Western or Christian values” or “the Palestinians” and so forth, appealing to consumers’ sense of fear or anxiety. This article is not to demonize people such as my Dad — who I love very much — but to rather make a point about the current state of media in the United States and the wider political context it reflects. A two-party system — extending into all aspects of public life — simply does not allow for the range of political nuance that would be needed to thwart the rise in such content (which, once again, profits off of some very real, valid concerns about the economy without offering any real solutions).
This type of media profits off of many of the socially destructive forces that attracts their audience in the first place in order to keep them coming back.
So, if you do decide to talk to your Boomer conservative dad about politics, recognize that you probably won’t change his mind for many of the reasons I have listed above. In my opinion, trying to “win” a debate with someone so far down the rabbit hole is essentially futile, as it threatens one’s ego, which naturally makes us defensive and thus unable to listen. Nonetheless, if we focus on discussion — on human connection — then I think it might be worth the effort, after all. In fact, we probably need it more than ever before.
Photo made available to Unsplash for free commercial use curtesy of David Clode.
1 thought on “Should You Talk to Your Dad about Politics? (Or My Thoughts on Right-Wing Content in America)”
Hi Gigi, yes, it’s me! I actually used my Saturday mornig for diving into your writings and vids, which is something I’ve been intending to do for so long !
Just some sponteneous thoughts concernig this subject:
I basicly agree with you, as you already know. What I would add, as I think it is a powerful mechanism, is that in a word where media belong more and more to big businessmen and where politicians depend on donations and good PR, the former and the latter are absolutely tied to each other.
Businessmen like Bolloré in France buy media not in order to directly earn money with them (nowadays, many newspapers make poor financial profits compared to other sectors, even taking publicity into account) but to have a means of pressure on politics in power positions.
The businesman agrees to sponsor the politician’s campaign in order to make him win the election and he makes sure his medias wouldn’t be to critical about issues concerning the politician and the system that provides him power. The best means to deliver something apparently interesting or better: something “exciting” to the reader/viewer consists in indistracting their attention with smokescreens. In return, the politician creates a favourabe environment for the businesman’s activities (others than média): less taxes, less regulationses, less controls, more grants, more free availability of common goods like land, roads etc.
Politicians and businessmen need the police in order to protect the system that protects private property. Furthermore,
journalists need the police, as a constant source of information, so it is vital for a journalist to stay in good terms with the local police, when it comes to reporting on public order issues and violence (wheras the reverse is not true and the police hasn’t much to lose by brutalizing journalists).
In short, as everybody is holding on to each other’s goatees, there is little room for real transparency and liberty in mainstream media and conventional local press.
I will skip the difficult subject of the internet here.
As to discuss with right wing partisans who belong to your loved ones, I often really get stuck! And afterwards, I may remember 2 crucial points that I didn’t manage to put into practice:
1. Leave beside all hope to win him ! The most you can hope for is to put some litte marks, to scratch a little bit their convictions. What counts is not to win but to do our best to give a glimpse on something else than what they know. And after all, no individual will save the world (not even you or me :-)), so dont mind too much about failure to convince.
2. Ask them questions instead of talking too much (poor me, that’s not a technique I excel in). Just questionning can make them feel aware of their biases and shortcomings. But avoid to play around like Guillaume Meurice, I would say. Male boomers can’t stand feeling humiliated, so it may reinforce their defensiveness.
All in all, as you say, it may not be worth too much effort. But we are all different. I myself feel bad after not having said anything, as I need to express myself in at least one little statement. Wheras Sergio doesn’t mind to simply keep quiet.
Looking forward to continue on this topic in person!
XXX
Comments are closed.