Everywhere we turn, we are bombarded with messages. Television shows, commercials, newspapers, ads, broadcast news, even the words you are reading right now all aim to make you think a certain way. Blame these observations on my communication major, but I am constantly amazed that in this digital age, we really are not given much chance to think for ourselves. This is especially important and sometimes blatantly obvious during these presidential campaign months. We are constantly being told what issues are important, what certain people think about them, and what we should think about these people. How do we know what to believe, what to ignore, and how can we truly find our own voices amid the noise? The answer, I think, lies in the details.
What is the first thing you think of when you hear the word "Republican"? Perhaps you created an image of past presidents, or an issue or policy related to them. These images are all valid and significant. Now, more importantly, think of how you feel when you hear the word. Do you feel appreciation, anger, or indifference? Although some people will react more strongly than others, most of us will feel something when we think of the word "Republican." Now, what do you feel when you hear the word "Democrat"? "Terrorist"? "Immigrant"?
I'm sure most people will have an immediate and strong reaction to the words I mentioned above. These feelings reveal much about how we process messages, and why our political system functions the way it does. So many stigmas and emotions are attached to certain individual words, and the majority of these feelings come from how these images are presented to us in the media and even in our everyday language.
For example, the simple naming of someone as an "illegal immigrant" inherently implies two forms of alienation from everyone else. The person is not only "illegal" and therefore in the wrong, but is also an "immigrant," and therefore not one of us. Regardless of how the average person might really feel about the issue of immigration, the simple use of terms such as "illegal immigrant" implies negative connotations in our everyday speech.
You might think I'm reading too much into this. If so, I'd say that you should watch a few campaign videos and then get back to me. I don't think that the powerful use of words like "illegal immigrant" is unintentional. It's easier to make policies and decisions that deal with the lives and liberties of others when they are not really viewed as equals. This objectification of people is so widespread and commonplace that we are often not aware that it even occurs.
We are constantly pressured to categorize others and ourselves. We are Democrats or Republicans; there is barely any middle ground. The Middle Eastern states harbor the "terrorists" and "Islamic extremists," not countries full of innocent citizens with a small minority of culpable ones. There are "illegal immigrants" and American citizens. This isolating language is dangerous, but unfortunately is characteristic of American politics.
It's true that much of this can be blamed on the media or on advertising agencies and politicians. We may condemn mudslinging in campaigns and the way sensationalism dictates how the news is reported. The sad fact is, however, that these strategies persist because they work. I'd like to believe that if the public did not respond to negative television ads about politicians, they would cease to exist. Perhaps the challenge is, then, to recognize and appreciate the power of words, and to form our opinions accordingly.
The next time you see an ad for a candidate on television, pay attention to what is said and how you feel when you see it. Be aware of the inherent nature of propaganda in politics, and how certain words can do more than articulate opinions. If we can learn to look at issues without the blinders that are created for us, we can see more broadly and clearly. Maybe then, we can look past the mudslinging and the rhetoric, and form real and authentic beliefs about issues and candidates. Oh, and by the way, you didn't hear that from me - you thought that for yourself.
Be the first to comment on this article!