As the national referendum on Saturday next week approaches, posts about the four referendum questions have been popping up all over social media, with a handful of them being image macros and memes appealing to emotions, serving no purpose in understanding the issues at hand.
These are obviously gimmicks from different parties to keep their voters in line. If people cannot help but give their two cents on social media, they would find it the best filter for finding like-minded friends on Facebook. Friends who were once affable and congenial became touchy as hell, which is mentally exhausting.
Talking politics with someone who has a different political view is itself frustrating enough.
On Nov. 23, Pew Research Center published a poll conducted in September, which found that when having political conversations with those they disagree with, 59 percent of Americans felt stressed and frustrated. That was up by 9 percentage points from a similar poll conducted in 2019, and by 13 percentage points from a 2016 poll. For Democrats, Republicans and independent voters who support each party, there were not obvious differences.
Among the Americans who feel stressed and frustrated, liberal Democrats and independent voters, at 66 percent, made up a larger percentage than the moderate, conservative Democrats — 55 percent — while conservative Republicans and independent voters — 61 percent — made up a larger percentage than the liberal, moderate Republicans at 53 percent.
The results suggest two conclusions: First, that no matter what your political view, it is getting more difficult to communicate with someone who holds a different perspective. Second, the stronger their stance, the harder it is to communicate. This is hardly a surprise. Political polarization caused by the emergence of social media is nothing new, and ways of spreading propaganda have been evolving with the manipulation of social communities.
From simple, straightforward statements to fake posts, fishing, fantasy, dream divinations, creations and memes, the underlying issues in the referendum have been drowned in emotions. Those with opposing ideas are considered as “the Other,” and once labeled, there is no place for empathy or stepping into other people’s shoes. It is either join in the trash-talking way or the highway.
However, the public agenda behind the referendum is not decided by who has the upper hand in trash talk, as it cannot enable us to find what most benefits a diverse society, nor does it necessarily foretell the result of the election.
A “war of words” only polarizes supporters of different views, and with both parties finding less and less common ground, the result can only end in a zero-sum situation with damage on both sides, while independent voters reside outside the bubble. Not only are they sitting on the fence to avoid becoming the enemy of either party, they also stay out of the mess, with some probably casting spoiled ballots or giving up on voting to show their indignation with both parties.
In a democratic and diverse society, public agendas should be discussed at length to reach a consensus, so that the damage can be reduced to a tolerable level.
Demagoguery is obviously sacrificing the public good for political benefits. Even if there are fleeting benefits, the level of opposition by the “victims” would only escalate in the next election. As voters, we should not succumb to the demagoguery of politicians on social media, but do our own critical thinking to avoid making any regrettable decisions.
Chang Yueh-han is an adjunct assistant professor in Shih Hsin University’s department of journalism.
Translated by Rita Wang
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with