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
As the war in Burma stretches into its 76th year, China continues to play both sides. Beijing backs the junta, which seized power in the 2021 coup, while also funding some of the resistance groups fighting the regime. Some suggest that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is hedging his bets, positioning China to side with the victors regardless of the outcome. However, a more accurate explanation is that China is acting pragmatically to safeguard its investments and ensure the steady flow of natural resources and energy for its economy. China’s primary interest is stability and supporting the junta initially seemed like the best
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
Numerous expert analyses characterize today’s US presidential election as a risk for Taiwan, given that the two major candidates, US Vice President Kamala Harris and former US president Donald Trump, are perceived to possess divergent foreign policy perspectives. If Harris is elected, many presume that the US would maintain its existing relationship with Taiwan, as established through the American Institute in Taiwan, and would continue to sell Taiwan weapons and equipment to help it defend itself against China. Under the administration of US President Joe Biden, whose political views Harris shares, the US on Oct. 25 authorized arms transfers to Taiwan, another
The US election result will significantly impact its foreign policy with global implications. As tensions escalate in the Taiwan Strait and conflicts elsewhere draw attention away from the western Pacific, Taiwan was closely monitoring the election, as many believe that whoever won would confront an increasingly assertive China, especially with speculation over a potential escalation in or around 2027. A second Donald Trump presidency naturally raises questions concerning the future of US policy toward China and Taiwan, with Trump displaying mixed signals as to his position on the cross-strait conflict. US foreign policy would also depend on Trump’s Cabinet and