Guest Author: Kirsten Mast
Additional content and editing: Theron Harmon
Look to the Past. Understand the Present
The current political climate is boisterous, contentious, and polarized all over the world. However, in the coming week, all eyes are on the United States and the presidential election.
A divided polity is not new to our history. The American Civil War sprang from a similar climate. Of course, no one wants a civil war. Let’s consider some crucial differences and similarities between that time and today. First, there was a similar polarization and lack of empathy for opposing viewpoints.
In a highly religious time, both sides of the slavery question used the Bible to support their claims and questioned the very integrity of those who disagreed. Similarly, we discount one another’s views as one side shouts, “Democracy is at stake!” and “Remember January 6th!” While the other side rolls their eyes, saying “We’re a Republic, not a Democracy” and “What about the riots of 2020?”
In the 1860s, people met in the public square to argue their views face-to-face, whereas many today hide behind anonymous usernames and don’t look each other in the eye. The Civil War delineated sides based on Northern and Southern states, but our time is more defined by cities versus rural areas and Red States versus Blue States. Both times brought out deep emotion and divided families against one another.
What can rational Americans do to overcome the divide? Research, think, discuss, and vote.
Voting is the core right and responsibility of citizens. Our government is “of the People, for the People, and by the People.” But unless the people take their responsibility seriously, it will become a government of, by and for the elites. Only fully engaged citizens will have the knowledge and power to protect our freedoms. Since our new “public square” is online, what we say and do online matters—A LOT!
Value of long-form discussion
When Abraham Lincoln was running for Senate in Illinois during the build-up to the Civil War, he and his incumbent opponent, Stephen Douglass, held a series of seven debates. They were well-attended and were transcribed for broader distribution. The format was impressive: an hour-long speech with a 30-minute rebuttal followed by the same for the other candidate. These debates outlined deeply held, well-thought-out arguments for each side.
Lincoln-Douglass Debate. Granger Collection
The Lincoln-Douglass debates were aimed at thoughtful, interested, curious citizens. Those who attended and read these speeches could perceive the values held by each candidate, and could understand the application of the facts to the law. Engaging in political discourse was a serious matter and was taken seriously by voters.
What is our equivalent today? At Unplugged, we find extraordinary value both as consumers and as participants in the long-form podcast format. Multiple members of our leadership team have been guests on a range of podcasts. Some are niche or are just getting started. Others are among the largest podcast shows in the world like Tucker Carlson, Shawn Ryan and Glenn Beck.
This presidential election cycle has been notable as the “alternative media” has, in many respects, superseded and supplanted the legacy media. Long-form podcasts, citizen journalists, Substack publications, alternative social and video platforms such as Rumble and Truth Social have all played a much larger role than in prior cycles. The X platform has become extraordinarily important, and from our point of view, if Elon Musk had not purchased X, the landscape for free speech in the United States and around the world would be much more bleak and suppressed.
The rise of X as the primary public square for participatory discourse online has provided a much-needed distribution platform from which alternative media can grow. Free speech is paramount to maintaining a democratic republic.
Modern challenges
Researching, thinking about, and discussing political ideas remains a major responsibility, but our online discussion model comes with challenges. Five major challenges are 1) short attention spans, 2) anonymity online, 3) suppressing opposing views, 4) foreign actors, and 5) echo chambers.
First, our attention spans are shorter than ever, making long-form arguments likely to be ignored. Longer-form content helps us analyze the ideas and gives us time for in-depth thought on issues. Without it, we are limited to short sound bites that actually bypass rather than encourage thought.
Second, our forums for discourse allow anonymity, encouraging unkindness and a lack of empathy. People say things online they would never say in person. Rudeness and mean-spiritedness run rampant when we can’t see the hurt in someone’s eyes.
Third, establishment elites have already chosen a side and actively punish or suppress those who express opposing views. Time and again, reports surface of algorithms that bias responses to support the approved narrative. Each time, they say it was a mistake, but it continues to happen.
Fourth, online discourse is naturally international, meaning foreign actors can affect our opinions and election results. When we discuss ideas in person, we know our conversation partners. We often know their biases and their values. The further apart we are from them, the less we know and are less able to evaluate their words rationally and emotionally.
Fifth, the algorithms that control our social media feeds create echo chambers, so we rarely encounter opposing views. Once we watch a video or read an article on a subject, the algorithms feed us more of the same. While this may feel comfortable and keep us glued to our screens—which is the purpose of the algorithm—it does not encourage us to dig deep and research new thoughts.
Self-governance
With the intense data collection nearly all of us are subject to, Big Tech can already watch, review, and track what we do, think, and write. One way to be more responsible for our future is to step boldly into the information we may not agree with or have heard. We can overcome the five challenges above by protecting our online privacy, so we choose our data sources rather than allowing our tech “overlords” to choose it for us. We can use platforms that require people to use their real names and verify content providers, and we can make the time to become well-informed by reading and watching long-form, thoughtful material about the issues of the day.
Self-governance requires work and discipline. If we lack these, we will soon be slaves of those who are willing to do the work of governing. We cannot lazily scroll memes and sound bites to decide who is worthy of our vote. We must, and can make our voices heard as we engage in the public square, either in person or online.
When we created the UP Phone, we were responding to the importance and criticality of online communication. We wanted to give users an option to declare their independence from the algorithms. Choose LibertOS, an operating system that does not track your every move. Use media platforms that allow and encourage careful, personal discussions about the values and interests of your country. Most countries now have some form of self-government. If citizens are not becoming well-informed, discussing issues, researching, and thinking about the problems of the day, then we are on the path to ending self-government and returning to some form of tyranny. Vote with your dollars as well as your ballot. Choose to support the things you value! Privacy, freedom, independence, and trust are all worth the price.
Explore UP Phone