The Penguin Review
Abstract
There are some things that I, even as someone relatively new to politics, know are not normal–the blatant disregard of the Constitution, the seemingly rapid collapse of checks and balances, and the twisting and extending of presidential powers, to name a few. What is not clear to me, however, is whether people's reactions, attitudes, and interactions towards politics have always been this way. Growing up, I imagined politicians were respectable people who worked in the best interests of our country and who, even when disagreements did arise, settled problems with structured deliberation. I assumed voters looked at politics with logic and picked who they voted for based on the candidate with the potential to weigh options and choose what helps the most people. Growing up during post-Trump politics, I began to understand that some politicians do not act out of logic, but weaponize emotions, which some people base their votes on. And while I still had hope that a majority of politicians might be the way I imagined, the 2024 election happened, and I noticed that every interaction felt more like bickering than debate. In fact, an earlier version of this essay, written during the election, speaks to my disillusionment in its introduction: "There’s something weird with each candidate in the (2024) election: when Kamala speaks, I feel like I'm being treated like a kindergartner; similarly, when Trump speaks, I feel like I'm listening to a kindergartner. Well before Kamala took over for the Democrats, when debates between Biden and Trump felt like children arguing on the playground, this odd feeling was still present. I look around and see people using emotions over logic."
Included in
American Studies Commons, History Commons, Political Science Commons