|
Anyone else see it? The press keeps reporting the president's disapproval numbers by describing it as evidence of "division." Division is negative. "A house divided cannot stand." Division weakens. We are at war, those who divide us weaken us and make us vulnerable. All of these are the obvious implications of saying "the country is divided." The message is, those who don't support the president are divisive, and should re-unite with the rest of the country by supporting him.
Think how they would report a democratic president with 50% disapproval ratings. There would be no implicit criticism of the traitorous dividers who weaken our country. There would be talk of a faltering presidency who has lost the support of almost half the people, a president weakened by his inability to unite the people with his message. A completely different viewpoint, isn't it? Yet its not the viewpoint we are getting now. The "the country is divided" meme is so powerful we use it, constantly.
We should fight the use of this propagandistic phrase. Why is it reported this way, why isn't the reporting focused on the presidents failure to win over half of the people. Its not the people's obligation to support or like the president, its the president's obligation to be a leader, to unite the country. Yet the dominant rhetoric throws the blame on the people. Its not the people who are at fault for dividing the country, its the president's failure to unite, his failure to garner the respect of thsoe who disagree with him. Fight this distortion.
|