The Real Story About Fake News is Partnership and One Nation Slightly Divisible
The two sources, “The Real Story About Fake News, is a Partnership,” and “One Nation National Slightly Divisible” provides a good revelation regarding the associated dangers which partisanship was exposing the United States to. It has been proved that the associated biasness of the partisans’ functions in a more racist social group instead of a political disagreement. Therefore, it is out of such prejudice that American democracy has been subjected to mutilation (Taub, 2017).
To demonstrate how racism influences politics, Taub, in the article “The Real story about Fake News is partisanship,” noted that the states were involved in different voting styles, and of course, these differences were majorly contributed by the racism (Taub, 2017). For example, in different states, most of the minorities throw their supports to the people of their color. And in this case, African Americans were regarded as being the traditionalist Red Americans, which was a kind of discrimination due to their race. All in all, it should be extensively understood that the fake news was all over-utilized in a bid to limit the political spectrum.
I think that racism is actually driven by the ruling class in order to keep the majority of people divided. It keeps people from having a dialogue with one another to reach common goals such as a better standard of living and having a true democracy where the government would serve the interests of the people. Instead, we have groups of politicians who are only serving their own interests by aiding the wealthiest criminals who sponsor them to pass damaging legislation that they can profit from.
In reference to Taub, all was well until a time when a great feeling towards the creation of unity and solidary among those that felt they were never part of the unity in the United States of America (Taub, 2017). Therefore, this led to the blaring headlines ‘ the United States’ and ‘a nation united.’ The launches of different scathing attacks were levelled against the Blue America epicenter and the downtown of the great Manhattan. Within a short period, all the associated jokes and hostility brewed among the New Yorkers ended, replaced by the outpouring respect, love, and support. According to Taub, the old animosity, which to some extent, appeared as a kind of sibling rivalry at the time, was of no value, considering that the family was much threatened. This is, therefore, a perfect demonstration of one nation that was slightly divisible.
I think that the most condoned reason behind the current divide is transparency in the US Congress’s activity. People cite the rise of partisan media, corporate money, and the lack of a powerful enemy (like the USSR) as possible explanations to the increasingly gridlocked US political system. Contrary to conventional wisdom, transparency is the root of most of America’s domestic challenges, even though it is usually seen as a counterbalance against the ineffective government, fraud, and corruption.
In reference to Brooks, he discusses the existing differences among two major groups, which include Blue America and Red America. Red America was entirely made up of rural communities and farmers, while Blue America was made up of the populations in the major cities that had businesses and stores (Brooks, 2000). Therefore, Brooks provides an account of the blue and red sections under the electoral map, and his interests mainly fell on voting patterns. Therefore, Brook identified two major cities that acted as a representation of these sections. In this case, there was Franklin County Pennsylvania, which was majorly for the ‘Red America’ and the county of Montgomery, Maryland, for Blue America.
I think that to a point, partisan politics is not only good for America, it can be a sign our system is running at the most optimal levels. This is the very reason we have not, only the two-party system, but three co-equal branches of government, so that no one person, ideology, or party has total and complete control. Our founders realized that healthy disagreement and debate were good for the Republic, and encouraged new ideas and solutions we may never have thought of or considered if one side was in complete control.
Brooks began a journey of carrying a more in-depth investigation of the associated causes of the differences among the two major groups. The first reason which was considered by Brooks was the economics, and he succeeds in providing an examination of the theory that left both the rich and the poor so separated. According to the blue states, they boasted of high-income levels, good jobs, and high-end stores (Brooks, 2000).
The next idea by Brooks was based on religion. He discovered that a major percentage of those that engaged in the religion were mostly from the red states. There existed several churches in Franklin, and individuals were fully committed to weekly religious services (Brooks, 2000). These areas are mainly inhabited by the lowly in the society, especially the African Americans who face myriads of social problems, as demonstrated in the Real Story about Fake News.
The final suggestion, according to Brooks, was the realization that the ‘Red America’ wasn’t struggling to remain unique and impress other people. There was also the perfect replication of humility that was detected among the red states, and on the other hand, the individuals from the blue states appeared to direct their focus on their own. Therefore, Brooks resolved that this would be a significant difference, although not sufficient reason to cause a division. Therefore, after careful considerations of different thoughts, Brooks concluded that the United States was never divided. Not along the racial lines, as demonstrated in “The Real Story About Fake News is Partisanship”; instead, he branded it as a ‘Cafeteria Nation.’ This is because each and every person in this region had their gang for hangout, and he compared it with a school’s cafeteria (Brooks, 2000).
Therefore, in my view, the partisanship is the source of divide since individuals within American society are already divided. We have the Red and Blue Americans, a category which is mainly based on the economic strength of various individuals. There is also the political class where there exists different reality among the democrats and the republicans. Therefore, in my view, partisanship plays a significant role in individual social relationships and acts as a major player in the separation of the people. The two articles that are, “The Real Story About Fake News is Partnership”, and “One Nation Slightly divisible” proves the differences that exist among people (Taub, 2017). They also clearly demonstrate how they come together as a nation during difficult times. I would also want to confirm that partisanship has affected my social relationship. Sometimes I am prejudiced to align myself with some social circle out of their influence without even my knowledge. In other words, partisanship can be a major source of division on individuals’ social structure.
In the meanwhile, the government will be dysfunctional when divided, because the two sides are no longer interested in addressing shared problems; and it will not be interested in compromising with the other side when it is unified. The other side is simply the enemy or at any rate the other. (Trump already appears to treat blue states differently than he does red or purple states.) If neither side manages to break the deadlock to create a permanent electoral majority, dysfunctionality interspersed with periods of horrifying policy-making (horrifying to one side or the other) will simply become the norm.
References
Taub, A. (2017). The Real Story About Fake News is Partisanship. The New York Times.
Brooks, D. (2001). One Nation, Slightly Divisible. The Atlantic.