Politics is polarizing in nature, but how has the state of politics in Canada gone from real productive conversations and understanding to its current state of shallow talking points, misinformation and slander?
Individuals do not participate in politics to make life worse for others. Regardless of political affiliation, everyone shares one common goal, and that is to make life better for those around them.
However, people hold a vastly different perspective on how we do so, or what “better” even means. But at the heart of every political ideology, people want to act in the interest of others.
It is far easier to stifle debate than challenge ideas or accept when you may be wrong—both the right and left are guilty of this.
It is important to remember this in the political world: the people that disagree with you are not your adversaries.
Instead, they are your neighbours that share a common goal at heart. While current federal leaders Andrew Scheer, Justin Trudeau, Jagmeet Singh and Elizabeth May have vastly different visions for a better Canada, all parties believe their policies will make Canada a better country.
We often overlook this big picture and slip into bitter debates about narrow issues.
No doubt there are some extremely contentious topics in current Canadian political affairs. Pipelines, abortion, Indigenous affairs and gun control being some of the most polarizing topics today. But sometimes, trying to view the issue through the eyes of someone with a stark contrast in opinion may deliver a new perspective.
Violence and hate speech are increasingly prevalent when people are unable to listen to one another and engage in civilized debate over issues.
It is far easier to stifle debate than challenge ideas or accept when you may be wrong—both the right and left are guilty of this.
Rather than actually engaging in meaningful discussion, too often people throw false labels around instead. There exists this idea that by labelling someone as an extremist or radical, their views do not require debate, and therefore can be used as a tool to shut down conversation rather than engage in meaningful civil discourse.
The terms “radical” and “extremist” certainly have a place, but where and when are we using them as a society?
To provide a brief example, if someone on the right of the political spectrum accuses someone on the left of being “radical” for supporting national pharmacare, is that genuinely radical when two of three major political parties hold the same position?
The practice of using labels to disqualify legitimate ideas from debate is one that contributes to the growing polarization of politics.
The polls are showing the 2019 election will be a close one. Thus, it is essential that Canadians read all platforms, engage in political conversations and vote.
File photo
