Red v. Blue: does using "colors" damage political discourse?
Jul 28, 2019 12:36:42 GMT -5
michaelw likes this
Post by robeiae on Jul 28, 2019 12:36:42 GMT -5
Inspired by this piece (which is only one of many, to be sure): www.huffpost.com/entry/virginia-november-elections-blue_n_5d30ac0ee4b0419fd329dd29
Obviously, there are a ton of political people out there who relish designating themselves as "Blue" or "Red," who use the division out of hand to categorize states, cities, counties, and so on (see Erick Erickson, for instance). But this is not a traditional thing. When I was growing up in Virginia, it wasn't a "red state" at all. Indeed, in high school I worked on the campaigns of several Dem pols and they all used red and white as their primary campaign colors, as opposed to their Repub opponents who were using blue and white (bumper stickers, buttons, posters, etc.).
At some point--I'm thinking it happened with the advent of cable news--the media locked in to the red/blue dichotomy, assigned blue to Dems and red to Repubs. And in relatively short order, the parties accepted these designations.
And it bugs me, because I think it assists in the dumbing down of political discourse, makes the parties more like sports teams, where supporters are more like fans who defend their side only because it's the side they have picked. And by the same token, they attack the other side only because it's the other side.
The historical precedence for my view would be found in the Nika Riots of Constantinople, which occurred in 532 AD. The participants of the riots were two factions--the Greens and the Blues--both of which began as sports associations, primarily for chariot racing. But they became much more than that, eventually becoming social clubs who supported--or didn't support--various political issues and public figures. The Emperor Justinian was a big time Blue growing up, leading to the Blues being his political supporters, while the Greens were his political opponents (there were other factions, but none so large as these two; think Real Madrid and Barcelona, which indeed carry some politics as well).
It is, I think, too easy to identify with something so simple as a color, too easy to see a contrary color as the enemy, too easy to see supporters of another color as enemies. And I think the current political climate--which as been becoming steadily more combative since Clinton's time--owes much to this kind of simplistic labeling.
What do you think?
Virginia, a red state for decades, has begun to turn blue. From 2008 on, Virginians have consistently voted for Democratic presidential candidates while slowly electing more Dems at the federal, state and local levels.
At some point--I'm thinking it happened with the advent of cable news--the media locked in to the red/blue dichotomy, assigned blue to Dems and red to Repubs. And in relatively short order, the parties accepted these designations.
And it bugs me, because I think it assists in the dumbing down of political discourse, makes the parties more like sports teams, where supporters are more like fans who defend their side only because it's the side they have picked. And by the same token, they attack the other side only because it's the other side.
The historical precedence for my view would be found in the Nika Riots of Constantinople, which occurred in 532 AD. The participants of the riots were two factions--the Greens and the Blues--both of which began as sports associations, primarily for chariot racing. But they became much more than that, eventually becoming social clubs who supported--or didn't support--various political issues and public figures. The Emperor Justinian was a big time Blue growing up, leading to the Blues being his political supporters, while the Greens were his political opponents (there were other factions, but none so large as these two; think Real Madrid and Barcelona, which indeed carry some politics as well).
It is, I think, too easy to identify with something so simple as a color, too easy to see a contrary color as the enemy, too easy to see supporters of another color as enemies. And I think the current political climate--which as been becoming steadily more combative since Clinton's time--owes much to this kind of simplistic labeling.
What do you think?
). The shift occurred partly because of shifts in ideology and partly because of redistricting shenanigans. 
