upworthy

politics

My Gen Zer's reaction to the McCain/Obama debate was shocking

Gen Z is a very politically aware generation, though many of them are still in high school they keep up with the political landscape of the world. There are many Gen Z political and social movements as well as official organizations fully run by these young people. Given how politically active Gen Z is, sometimes it's easy to forget they weren't old enough to be politically conscious when Barack Obama was running for president. It wasn't that long ago but some people, it's already history.

Their exposure to politics came to be in some pretty harsh and polarizing times where they were often at the center of the discussion. For many of the older Gen Zers, they felt thrusted into the political sphere to fight for gun reform whether they were ready or not.

Because politics has never been off limits, and I encourage them to research policies to form their own opinions, I hadn't realized there was something missing. Just like nearly every geriatric Millennial I waste a good amount of time scrolling through TikTok while doing mundane chores. But this time my 16-year-old was watching over my shoulder. I was stopped on a video clip of John McCain and Barack Obama's presidential debate in 2008, which happens the be the year my 16-year-old was born.

After a brief comment about how young former President Obama looked in the clip, my child asked, " who is that guy," pointing to McCain, "and why were they so nice to each other?" Admittedly I was baffled by the question and sought clarification to which they explained, "If the old guy is a Republican and Obama's a Democrat then why are they just talking like normal people? If politicians could talk like that we would probably get a lot more stuff done."

We both left the video shocked for very different reasons. It was then that I realized my kid's only conscious exposure to American politics was post-2016. It was hard for them to comprehend that politicians being cordial and respectful toward each other was normal prior to the end of Obama's second term. Of course there were cheap shots taken here or there but they didn't consistently devolve into the shouting matches Gen Z has become accustomed to witnessing by our elected officials.

Joe Biden GIF by PBS NewsHourGiphy

My child couldn't quite understand how American politicians went from being able to have respectful conversations while disagreeing to shouting slurs on the House floor. They were equally as taken aback by the content of the conversations the two men were having noting that they were actually talking about political differences on how to help people and they both seemed to "actually care." In the short three-minute video both men were calm, respectful and didn't attempt to shout over one another. They followed the rules of the debate while still countering each other's stance on issues that impact the daily life of Americans.

McCain and Obama's mutual respect wasn't something that was just for the cameras. While they disagreed on a lot of things politically, they both understood that they had different approaches to doing the same job: caring for Americans. The political opponents weren't waiting for an opportunity to make the other look bad publicly, they saw each other has human first and politician second which is why it wasn't surprising that Obama delivered McCain's eulogy after he lost his battle with cancer.

As an adult that has been voting since George W. Bush ran for president, I was familiar with the normalcy of healthy cordial debates, my kid on the other hand was convinced that this debate was an anomaly. That's when we watched another video of McCain defending Obama at a town hall to solidify how normal it was. Their disbelief of political decorum and their categorization of "red bad, blue good" based on videos coming from our political leaders was a glaring condemnation of what American politics has morphed into.

People pick a political party like they're picking a sports team and have become accustomed to seeing them speak to each other in a way that wouldn't fly in any middle school in the country. This political devolvement has trickled down onto the American people and the younger generation is consuming this via social media as "normal." If this is our normal now then how far will we devolve before the pendulum swings back in the other direction? Is it too late to require better behavior from our politicians so we can course correct before the youngest Gen Zers are of voting age?

Though my child and I had very different reasons for our mutual shock after watching that video, I certainly agree with them. If politicians spent more time speaking to each other with respect and actually taking time to listen to the points made by their counterpart, we would have a much better outcome. Politicians are meant to compromise to find the best solution for all Americans, not just the loudest but that can't be done without listening to understand and treating your colleagues with respect.

Images via Facebook

Pamela Hemphill, formerly known as the "MAGA Granny"

Mere hours into his second term, President Trump signed an executive order granting clemency to roughly 1,500 people charged with offenses related to the Capitol riots and protests on January 6th, 2021. But one woman who went to jail for her role is refusing the pardon, saying none should have been issued at all.

Pamela Hemphill, formerly dubbed "MAGA Granny" on social media, pleaded guilty to parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building in 2022. She received a 60-day sentence, 36 months of probation, and an order to pay $500 restitution. "We were wrong that day," Hemphill told the BBC, adding that "[a]ccepting a pardon would only insult the Capitol police officers, rule of law and, of course, our nation." She continued, "I pleaded guilty because I was guilty, and accepting a pardon also would serve to contribute to their gaslighting and false narrative."

In a recent USA Today feature, Hemphill opened up about her change in perspective since January 6th, which she called “the worst day in our history."

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Many current Republicans support Trump but oppose the blanket pardons. The Fraternal Order of Police, the nation's largest police union, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, issued a joint statement denouncing the move, saying they "firmly believe" that anyone "convicted of killing or assaulting law enforcement officers" should be forced to "serve their full sentences."

"When perpetrators of crimes, especially serious crimes, are not held fully accountable, it sends a dangerous message that the consequences for attacking law enforcement are not severe, potentially emboldening others to commit similar acts of violence," the note continues.

Several Republican senators also took issue with the pardons, including North Carolina's Thom Tillis, who was surprised by their scope. "I just can’t agree,” he said. “I’m about to file two bills that will increase the penalties up to and including the death penalty for the murder of a police officer and increasing the penalties and creating federal crimes for assaulting a police officer—that should give you everything you need to know about my position.”

In their statement, the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police criticized Trump's predecessor for the same reasons. In one of his final acts in office, President Biden commuted the life sentence of Indigenous activist Leonard Peltier, who was convicted of killing two FBI agents in 1975. (Peltier, 80, will serve the rest of his sentence at home.) Biden, like Trump, also faced pushback from members of his own party—in this case, for using pardons for family and government employees who haven't been charged with crimes.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

"We need to make a critique of some of the more unjust pardons, like the January 6 pardons," said Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, of Virginia. "And I think it’s harder to make that critique, to stand on the high ground and make a critique of the Trump pardons on January 6 when President Biden is pardoning family members.” Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida told CBS News, "I'm not a fan of these pardons. I wish he didn't feel that he needed to do that. ... Now the precedent is set, from now into the future."

Political division is inescapable—seemingly more now than ever. But by taking a stand, Hemphill has set a unique and powerful precedent for people on both sides of the aisle. It takes courage to stand for one's principles, even when doing the opposite would benefit them personally.

Two young men arguing.

The downside to living in the Information Age is that we also live in a time when misinformation runs rampant. Studies show that fake news stories spread farther than those that are true, and people tend to believe information because it suits their worldview rather than because it happens to be correct.

It would be fine if most information was about things that are inconsequential in 2024, such as Bigfoot conspiracies or who killed John F. Kennedy. Unfortunately, a lot of misinformation affects people’s everyday lives, whether it’s vaccines, technology, or fluoride in our water supply. We saw it happen in real time when misinformation made it very hard for the average person to make sense of the COVID-19 pandemic, as it killed millions of people across the world.

That’s why it’s so important for people to respond correctly to misinformation. Knowing how to do so could mean the difference between life and death.

argument, misinformation, newsA woman who is confused by conflicting information. via Canva/Photos

A new paper in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General by researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center shows that many people have been using ineffective tactics when fighting misinformation. Most people think the best way to counter misinformation is to make a counterargument that refutes the incorrect person’s claim.

For example, if someone says that fluoride in the water supply is a way for companies to dump their toxic waste. Most people would do some Googleing and respond that, actually, that was a conspiracy theory that took hold in post-war Europe. However, researchers note that correcting people is an uphill battle. “People don’t like to be contradicted, and a belief, once accepted, can be difficult to dislodge,” the Annenberg Public Policy Center writes.

What’s the most effective way to counter misinformation?

Researchers suggest a more effective countermeasure to fighting misinformation: “bypassing.”

“Rather than directly addressing the misinformation, this strategy involves offering accurate information that has an implication opposite to that of the misinformation,” the Annenberg Public Policy Center writes. Instead of countering the incorrect opinion on fluoride, you bring up another positive point about fluoride that may cause them to reconsider their beliefs. Simply put, you counter the “negative implication of the misinformation with positive implications, without taking the difficult path of confrontation.”

So, if someone says, “Flouride is toxic waste,” you can respond with, “The Centers for Disease Control says Flouride is one of the 10 Greatest Public Health Achievements of the 20th Century, reducing tooth decay by approximately 25% in children and adults.”

One of the study authors, Granados Samayoa, says that “bypassing can generally be superior to correction, specifically in situations when people are focused on forming beliefs, but not attitudes, about the information they encounter.”

argument, misinformation, newsFriends having a friendly debate.via Canva/Photos

What is the ‘backfire effect’?

The “bypass” strategy also makes sense because of the “backfire effect,” a psychological phenomenon that says when people are introduced to credible information that contradicts their firmly held beliefs, they reject it and hold onto their beliefs even more strongly. Considering this, countering someone's misinformation with contradictory evidence may even worsen things for both parties involved.

The good news is that you don’t have to be a super-hero fact-checker to combat the spread of misinformation or have to get in someone’s face and start a heated argument. Using strategies like bypassing, you can help tackle misinformation in a non-confrontational and effective way. It’s all about shifting the conversation and planting a seed of truth that could grow into greater understanding.

Recent polls suggest that Republicans and Democrats have slightly different tastes that have nothing to do with politics.

Americans tend to choose their political party based on a number of factors: family, gender, religion, race and ethnicity, and even region all have a hand in shaping a person's political ideology. Famously, George Washington warned the country against a two-party system in his Farewell Address on September 17, 1796. Our first president cited fears that "partisanship would lead to a 'spirit of revenge' in which party members would not govern for the good of the people, but for power."

Over 220 years later, Washington may have been right, but things aren't as dire as they seem. As reported by CBS News, a recent study by the Pew Research Group found that while a lot does divide us, there's much more that we have in common on average.

In short, a lot goes into where we fall on the political spectrum, but an interesting new quiz from ChartsMe has taken things to the next level. It claims to be 98% effective in determining people's political affiliations by asking questions that—get this—have nothing to do with politics.



Take the quiz here.

So, how does it work? (I recommend you take the quiz before we break down what's going on!)

The quiz uses Jonathan Haidt's Disgust Scale and takes you through a series of questions and scenarios to determine how disgusted certain situations make you. According to ChartsMe, a 2014 study published with the National Library of Medicine (NLM) found that people who were more prone to disgust are more conservative. This leads them to more closely align with the Republican Party. Further research conducted in 2022 bolstered this finding by investigating the "Conservative-Disgust Paradox" in reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Some research disputes this though.

In 2019, the British Psychological Society cited a study that found that levels of disgust between conservatives and liberals are generally the same but highly "context-dependent." In other words, some liberals have higher disgust sensitivity than conservatives and vice versa depending on the topic, image, or idea.

woman looking disgusted

Does what disgusts you define you?

Photo by OSPAN ALI on Unsplash

Overall, it's human to feel disgust. Some scientists believe it's ancestral and that the adverse reactions to conditions we'd label “disgusting" were used to protect primitive ancestors from contamination and disease. According to National Geographic, Charles Darwin proposed that disgust served an evolutionary purpose in the late 1860s. It evolved, he noted, to "prevent our ancestors from eating spoiled food that might kill them." Helpful!

So, maybe being grossed out isn't inherently a conservative or liberal emotion, but the science tells us that what grosses us out and how deeply we're grossed out by it just might indicate our political leanings.

Do you agree with your ChartsMe results? Did they get it right? Either way, I think we can all agree this stuff is pretty neat.


This article originally appeared six years ago.