Danger in Abstraction
Politics vs. People in an Election Year
In the political arena, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Put another way, those who shout the loudest and stir the most controversy dominate the policy discussion and news cycle.
The cacophony of overamplified bad faith virtue signaling and opportunism we’ve been subjected to over the past few months is overwhelming as the nation braces for an immensely consequential presidential election in the fall.
Those of us who even semi-regularly peruse Twitter or tune in to a national broadcast on our 24-hour news network of choice can easily fall into the cognitive trap of thinking that the general population absorbs information in the same way. It’s easy to forget that the latest controversy consuming social media or splashing across the front page of the New York Times often doesn’t penetrate the awareness of the overwhelming majority of Americans. Issues that we may find self-evidently seismic may go entirely unnoticed, coming and going for most as little more than a water cooler conversation at work or overheard amongst the din at a social event on the weekend.
It’s perhaps unsurprising that the voting public generally sees the issues that affect us all in abstract terms. That is to say that they’re concerned primarily with what they can see and interact with — namely, their bubble: family, immediate community, and personal finances.
While entirely understandable, in our increasingly divided political climate, it presents a significant risk, namely that those who don’t follow the goings-on closely, are hyper-fixated on niche issues, or who have fallen prey to disinformation campaigns see fellow citizens outside their sphere of influence as the ‘other.’ We are entering an enormously important election season, and millions of Americans are only thinking of their fellow citizens in abstract terms — ‘trans people,’ ‘immigrants,’ ‘minorities.’
Consequently, there’s a problematic distance between the general public and those who stand to lose the most. There’s grave danger in people who, often unknowingly, slip into depersonalizing others and subsequently fall victim to bad faith demonization of some of society’s most vulnerable people.
Relatability — or, at an absolute minimum, the recognition of someone else’s humanity — is often a necessary precursor to empathy and progress. When that’s lacking, we are indeed through the looking glass.
What, then, can be done to resolve the disconnect that, at its core, threatens to deteriorate our democracy and public discourse so thoroughly as to render it unrecognizable? How can we start to repair or rebuild the connections we used to share?
It can be all too easy for even those with the best intentions to enter a sort of dissociative fugue state in the face of looming global climate catastrophe, the degradation of human rights, the fraying of democracy, and ever-expanding wealth inequality. Sometimes, it’s too much to take, particularly for those with a sensitive streak, and good people do nothing. They retreat instead to the relative safety of their immediate surroundings — when the world’s problems feel too big, the only thing that feels secure is what’s within the confines of your own home.
While that may feel right in the short term, it’s ultimately shortsighted.
Suppose we’re to overcome the disconnectedness that characterizes our current social discourse. In that case, engagement is the only answer if we’re to break down the walls that encourage some to think of their neighbors and fellow citizens as abstractions. By remaining silent and keeping the stories of true social impact to ourselves, we cede the lectern to bad-faith actors who want to build those walls ever higher.
Communicators are essential in this fight. Those who, through their words, can bring people along for a day in someone else’s shoes are at the frontlines of the conflict against abstraction. The most effective communicators don’t talk about abortion rights fights in statehouses; they tell the story of the teenage rape victim who has to travel out of state to find the care she needs. They don’t talk about how absurd it is to paint trans people as deviants and predators; they amplify the voices of devastated parents whose trans daughter ended her own life because she didn’t see a path in her ultra-conservative state to live authentically. They don’t pontificate on melting ice caps amid rising global temperatures; they focus on the human impact of climate change — the famine gripping a developing nation, unprecedented tsunamis in the South Pacific, and wildfires destroying homes across Canada.
These are the stories of human impact that move the needle.
This is what’s needed to overcome abstraction and achieve relatability. It’s what so much of our news media currently fails to do. The cliché about coverage of politics as a sport becomes more accurate with each passing controversy and injustice. Without a distinct effort from conscientious journalists and committed communicators, fatalism will continue to drown out what might be productive.
Speaking in general terms has done us no good, and it’s time for a change of approach. Real human lives are at stake, and the future we face should we fail grows increasingly dark and disturbing.
