by Erika Helene Etminan, Hamilton
As a newcomer in Montana, I experienced the US election campaign live for the first time, albeit from a spectator position. I enjoyed listening to people from both parties and learning about their perspectives, the arguments they put forward, and the underlying fears and concerns. It was very educational! But now, after the election, some friends want to know which side I’m on. Neither! I find myself between the fronts, but that’s not an easy position in this tense climate. Conversations become more laborious, faces more serious and voices more hesitant. Eyes are questioning, almost demanding, waiting for confirmation of their own position. People are becoming more cautious around me, but my skill in such conversations has increased. I bravely defend the position of the neutral middle, but the time of the middle seems to be over. In such conversations, I perceive that the distance is growing and that the conversations end faster than before. It is still my goal to be in contact with people from both sides, but I feel that some friends are slowly withdrawing from me. There has already been such a breakdown in communication in the times of COVID, and even then, there was this polarization between friend and foe. It was a time of contradictions that irreconcilably exclude each other. No more compromises and no more in-between spaces! It’s either/or! Okay, I have to show my color: Where do you stand, Helene? Some friends want to know whether I am a friend or an enemy. There is no escape. But what should I answer if my color is not blue or red, but purple? Purple is a beautiful color, now it has been removed from the range of possibilities. But is this really the case, or is it what polarization makes me think and fear?
This polarization between liberal and conservative can be observed worldwide, in politics, in religions, and it is causing serious concern. The nuances are lost and the subtleties fall silent. Polarization creates tension in friendships and families, between colleagues and neighbors; it brings distancing and isolation. Then everyone sits in their “bubble.” This may be comfortable for some, but at the same time it is the loss of what we have in common, of cohesion as a whole. Polarization is a cultural impoverishment, but it is possibly our future. Perhaps we will soon only talk to like-minded people who sit in the same ideological bubble. Or is there still an alternative, a bubble with friends in the middle who think purple is a great color and a real possibility? People who are willing to talk to each other despite their differences of opinion? But wouldn’t that be a bubble too?
With my position in the middle, I certainly have my own point of view, but above all, I have many questions: Why is the divisive more important than the common for some people? The human ego thrives on demarcation, okay, we know that, it’s not new. So, is the reason for this polarization the ego? But egos have been around for ages, whereas polarization is relatively new. Perhaps the ego needs simplistic either/or positions in order to deal with an increasingly complex world? Does it need a rock-solid point of view so that it can feel right? Or to put it another way: why do people actually think that what they “believe in” is true? And why are they so sure that they themselves – and only they alone – are in possession of the political or religious truth? Unfortunately, you cannot possess truth, at most you can strive for it and bring your own life into harmony with it. But perhaps the most important question concerns the background to this polarization: Who benefits from this division? Divide and rule, an ancient political strategy that has always worked. But who benefits from it this time? Which power – so far un-recognized in the background – is possibly using this strategy to separate people and then rule over them? Divide and rule, an ancient motto with very old questions that should urgently be asked again!
Bridget H Dolan says
My issue living in this state is that I know I’m safe as a white woman. I have lived in NYC, San Francisco, New Orleans, Cairo, Egypt, En Gev, Israel, Naples, Italy and Pasvalys, Lithuania, and nothing scares me more than poor white peeps. They were born with every privilege and are the angriest, most judgmental, most provincial humans I’ve ever met. I know that I can “pass” but that most of my friends couldn’t. It’s gross.
Mike Miller says
Thankfully there was no racism in your opinion!
Now insert “sarcasm font” into my comment.
Clair says
I tried to reply – but it didnt go through, even though I tried several times.
Maybe this paper is going the same way as mainstream media!
Mike Miller says
Victoria Howell, the publisher, is quite discriminating when it comes to certain comments, especially factual ones.
Gomez says
Honestly, there’s something wonky about how this site sometimes accepts (or does not) comments. Not even sure if it’s even a moderator/editor thing, I think the site is just glitchy. I too, have replied to comments, only to see them just disappear. Pretty frustrating at times.
Mike Miller says
I called and spoke to Victoria months ago about my factual sources and comments being censored, and then quoted the paper’s guidance on comments, noting I wasn’t violating them. Victoria hesitated, then replied angrily, “I make the rules!” (emphasis accent on “I”).
I got in touch with the BS owner about this issue, Jesse James Mullen, failed candidate for Secretary of State – Montana, and his replies were “Interesting. I’ll talk to her soon.”, when I checked back in four days later, he said “I’ll reach out again. I’m on the road in Eastern MT and haven’t received a reply to my first inquiry.”. When I commented back on the issues and what kind of paper was this, he didn’t reply. That was in April.
Wonky is one word for it, for sure.
Gomez says
I don’t doubt that you reached out to them, but when someone tries to post a banal reply, with no swearing, no links, nothing weird, and it just completely disappears when they click “post comment “, that makes me think that there’s some sort of glitch in the site.. I mean, when that happens there isn’t even any time for a moderator or admin to censor or remove a comment.
Mike Miller says
I’m no techy, but I find it highly suspicious that a “glitch” would result in the disapproval/approval of comments based along the lines you suggest, but it’s certainly happening, as you and I can attest to.
As they said on M*A*S*H, I think it’s horse hockey!
Clair says
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”
Alan says
The proposition has been framed entirely wrong. It is not left vs right, it’s the people vs the bloated federal government. Unfortunately the minions don’t see it that way. Scroll down and you will read one of the local leftist kooks complaining about the appointment of Pete Hedseth as sec of defense. There was a time when the left would have been vehemently opposed to the proliferation of arms to a foreign power for the sole purpose of enriching the military industrial complex and its beneficiary’s, most of whom reside in Washington DC. Those days are past, your old school hippies still get it, the modern leftist, not so much. The dynamics of politics have morphed into Pom Pom type soliloquies from both sides. So scroll a little more and you will see a California transplant on the right, suggesting the left get out of Montana. How do you possibly reconcile these to ideological gulfs? I suggest listening to a little Stealers Wheel music with a double shot of bourbon until some sanity returns to politics.
tracy wood says
I scrolled but didnt see another reply. Oh well. Youre letter in reply to hers was good and sort of hits the nail on the head. Least you make some good points.
Roger Mitchell says
“The proposition has been framed entirely wrong. It is not left vs right…”
I agree. While reading the above letter, it struck me that purple is nothing more than an equal mixture of red and blue. In other words, a middling, average, center-of-the-road position without taking a strong stand on anything.
Better to be passionate about something and be wrong than to be non-committal without being right.