Submitted by Gregory Alderete.
In an era increasingly dominated by tribalism and binary thinking, I find myself resisting the urge—and the pressure—to choose a side. Left or right. Conservative or liberal. Blue or red. These labels, once shorthand for political leanings, have become ideological cages. They distort. They divide. And more often than not, they erase the complexity of the individual.
People are not platforms. We are shaped by our experiences, our values, our doubts, and our contradictions. We each carry wounds—some visible, others less so—that make us susceptible to misinformation, to propaganda, to narratives crafted not to inform, but to manipulate. And in the absence of a truly credible and intellectually honest media, these narratives flourish.
This erosion of journalistic integrity did not begin recently. It accelerated during the Vietnam era, when the public’s trust in government and media institutions began to fracture. That disillusionment never fully healed. Instead, it metastasized into cynicism and polarization, hollowing out the public square.
Today, we see a new generation—young people who are, once again, refusing silence. They’re taking to the streets, raising their voices against systems they believe no longer serve them. They are mocked by some, dismissed by others. But history has taught us that when the young are ignored, societies do so at their peril.
This is not a crisis of partisanship—it’s a crisis of empathy. Of moral clarity. Of respect for one another’s humanity. If we cannot rediscover a shared sense of dignity, of basic honesty in how we engage with each other, we risk sinking into a kind of national self-harm. A slow-motion unraveling of the democratic experiment.
To avoid that fate, we must abandon the simplistic narratives that seek to define us and begin the harder work of listening, of learning, of being present with each other’s truths. We must rise—not as partisans—but as people.
Agreed!
Aye!
Yes
Well stated!
Right On! EKC
“. . . in the absence of a truly credible and intellectually honest media, these (manipulative) narratives flourish.” Sounds like a wholesale condemnation of all news media, and the very kind of assertion you are arguing against. What about the news stories, investigations, and interviews presented by NPR, PBS, local investigation reporters, and major print journalism such as the New York Times and the Washington Post? They may not be perfect but they assiduously fact-check and report corrections when they find error.
The idea that outlets like NPR, PBS, The New York Times, or The Washington Post are bastions of objectivity sounds nice in theory, but in practice, even these institutions have shown their own biases—subtle or not. While they do fact-check and issue corrections (which is better than nothing), that doesn’t mean the original framing, the choice of what stories to tell, or the narratives they push aren’t shaped by ideological leanings, access journalism, or editorial agendas.
Corrections don’t erase the original impact of a misleading headline or a story run too early with shaky facts. And while they might not be as blatantly manipulative as some cable news networks or tabloid rags, they’re still operating in a media environment where maintaining attention—and often access to power—is part of the business model.
So yes, we absolutely need a free press, but calling these outlets “intellectually honest” without caveat is generous. In the absence of truly independent, skeptical journalism that questions its own premises and serves the public over institutions, manipulative narratives do flourish—even in “respectable” newsrooms.
And so what do we do then with those who would burn it all down if they/them are not getting the attention they demand?
How do we deal with the influential but criminally insane?
How about the habitual liars who actually believe their own rhetoric.
Thieves, murderers, extortionists, etc….
To believe that for the first time ever, all people will think and appreciate alike, is naive.
Like you said, we went through all this in the 60s and 70s, and look where we landed.
I’m in the camp that just wants to be mostly left alone, but there are many collective camps that will never allow that.
Even those who seek power on a platform of peace, express targeted anger when simply questioned.
We’ll never all think alike, and expecting that is naïve. Some people lie, manipulate, or act dangerously—and they often get attention and power. Wanting to be left alone is a basic desire, but today’s world constantly demands engagement. Even peace has become politicized. The path forward isn’t consensus—it’s personal integrity, critical thinking, and protecting the right to disengage. Real hope lies in small, grounded communities that reject the chaos and quietly choose sanity.
We’ve seen what centralized power has done to small grounded communities, and we’ve seen small cults grow into a movement.
Urban planning with an emphasis on redistribution and bureaucratic opportunity, has robbed this country of its rugged individualism.
This has been a bad trade.