The problem with US politics as seen through the recent presidential debates

Being an opinionated and media-consuming American in the modern day is a deeply frustrating and disillusioning experience that the media and current political leadership have seemingly attempted to simplify by reinforcing an us-versus-them mindset. With 2024 being an election year, tensions are high and the nation is more polarized than ever.

As we saw in the recent US presidential debate, the candidates predominantly focus on what is wrong with their political opponent rather than on their own aspirations for the nation. These attacks do not revolve around actual policy but are mainly personal. This alone sets the foundation for an unstable and tumultuous political landscape.

During the 27 June debate between former president Donald Trump and the incumbent president Joe Biden, both candidates exchanged barbs that highlighted the intensity of their political rivalry. Trump repeatedly referred to Biden as “incompetent” and criticized his cognitive abilities, while Biden shot back by calling Trump a “dangerous demagogue” and labeled him a “liar” on multiple occasions.

These heated exchanges reflected an ongoing bitterness between the political rivals, with both candidates using personal insults as part of their broader political arguments. Similarly, the more recent debate between Trump and the incumbent vice president and presidential nominee Kamala Harris was filled with outrageous claims and sharp personal attacks, such as Trump repeatedly referring to Harris as “unqualified” and calling her leadership a “disaster” yet giving little to no evidence to support his claims.

Both candidates often spoke in absolutes, claiming that the other was the “worst” president or vice president in US history. Ultimately, the debate stage did not do more than provide candidates with a live, nationally televised platform to make outrageous claims about one another to draw in continued media attention and stoke up substantial reactions from the public. This misuse of the debate stage is disappointing and disheartening, fueling societal disunity, manipulating public opinion, and fostering distrust.

The Buddhist practice of right speech

When considering how the Buddha might suggest navigating any rivalry or debate, especially one with such high stakes and influence on the public, I return to the Noble Eightfold Path, which outlines how to end suffering and attain enlightenment. This consists of the following: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. While these are inextricably linked practices, I am particularly drawn to the concept of “right speech” when considering what is missing in modern politics.

Right speech refers explicitly to refraining from lies and slander that may bring about hatred and disunity. It means not using harsh, malicious, and abusive language and avoiding useless gossip. Instead, it encourages the use of words that are truthful, friendly, gentle, meaningful, and useful. For instance, a political candidate could focus on their own policies and vision for the country, rather than attacking their opponent. In the practice of right speech, one should not speak carelessly; one should speak at the right time and place. This principle suggests that while disagreements may arise, they should be handled with care, and communication should promote understanding and reduce conflict rather than inflame tensions.

The barriers to right speech in US politics: media, division, and corruption

The caveat that we are facing is that despite our ability to acknowledge that hateful speech is immoral, unproductive, and especially polarizing in a political setting, right speech is just not good business anymore. While many Americans condemn defamatory and cruel discourse in politics, it is undeniable that slander grabs the public’s attention in ways that honorable campaigns no longer do. This gives politicians a reason to continue practicing wrong speech.

News outlets and social media platforms capitalize on disunity and polarization in several ways, creating clickbait and generating advertising revenue. This profit-driven strategy has a significant impact on society, sparking strong emotional reactions. Whether it is outrage, support, or debate, users are more likely to engage with divisive content, which increases time spent on the platform. Thus, many platforms use algorithms that prioritize content likely to generate extreme reactions. This often means controversial or emotionally charged posts or news stories are promoted, to keep viewers engaged and boost advertising revenue. As engagement increases, so does a platform’s ability to charge advertisers more.

Advertisers pay a premium to reach specific demographics, and political polarization often leads to identifiable groups that are easier to target, such as people interested in specific ideologies or causes. Politicians themselves take advantage of these advertising opportunities, as candidates, advocacy groups, and political action committees spend considerable sums to reach polarized audiences with targeted ads. Politicians often galvanize their bases in similar ways by addressing issues that resonate strongly with the fears of their core supporters. This usually involves emphasizing divisive topics and framing issues to highlight a stark contrast between “us” and “them.”

Polarization creates a sense of urgency or crisis, mobilizing action and donations. Not only do campaigns commonly utilize exaggeration, defamation, and false narratives to humiliate their rivals, they also capitalize off of public and the media responses to them. The more divided the audience, the more advertising can be customized to appeal to specific beliefs and values.

Ultimately, conflict has become its own business model, meaning that politicians, news outlets, and social media platforms have a vested interest in ongoing harmful speech. As politicians continue to leverage the existing divisions through slander, more people turn to the media as a battleground for ideological conflicts, ensuring a steady stream of engagement. This constant inflow of engagement not only financially benefits platforms and politicians but further divides society. It has become abundantly clear that right speech no longer has a place in US politics, especially the ongoing presidential race, as both sides are intentionally deepening division in our democracy for profit.

So what can we do when those we are supposed to look to for advocacy and direction are actively serving as agents of bad faith? Clearly, we cannot look to politicians, candidates, or most influential voices in the media to serve as role models for virtuous behavior. Instead, Americans are individually responsible for wisely and compassionately practicing right speech, despite living in an environment where division is monetized and incentivized. This begins with cultivating an awareness of the situation we are in and thus committing to navigating it with wisdom. As a young, strong-minded American exploring Buddhist practice in such a divisive environment, I have been inspired to explore what Buddhism might advise about living, working, and generally being around people with whom I cannot agree on either basic or complex issues.

Buddhist practices to help cultivate respect in a divisive environment

I am reminded of the crisis of Devadatta and Prince Ajatasattu, which highlights themes of ambition, jealousy, and moral decline. Devadatta was a cousin of the Buddha and initially a monk in the Buddha’s sangha. However, he became envious of the Buddha’s position and sought to establish his own following. Thus, he did the most terrible thing one could do in a Buddhist community—he created a schism. Devadatta challenged the Buddha’s leadership, aiming to divide the community. Prince Ajatasattu, son of King Bimbisara of Magadha, was influenced by Devadatta and convinced to overthrow his father to gain power. The two of them attempted to harm the Buddha and split his community in the name of power, but ultimately they failed and their actions led to both of their downfalls.

While not directly comparable to the ancient sangha due to its complexities, if the United States is a “community,” one could say it’s going through its own deep and violent rupture: Democrat versus Republican. As a result of corrupt media and divisive political voices, Americans are often encouraged to vote for one candidate not because they admire them but because they hate the other and, in turn, they hate everyone who votes for that individual. Based on their own prior conditioning, personal values, and the media they have consumed, most of the US public has “picked a side” and will vehemently stand by that decision. The expression “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” seems as relevant as ever.

It is rare nowadays for opinionated people on opposing ends of the political spectrum to have conversations that do not in some way turn hostile. It is even more rare that any sort of understanding is found. Unfortunately, much of the general public has adopted the unskillful method of berating those they disagree with en masse, further shaping an unsafe atmosphere in which assumptions, slander, and name-calling prevail.

In Buddhism, the virtues of “arguing” and disagreement focus on compassion and patience. While Buddhism generally discourages antagonistic or ego-driven arguments, it recognizes the value of dialogue, including disagreement, as a means for growth, understanding, and reducing suffering.

There are many political subjects and policies that Americans, myself included, feel strongly about. I could identify quite a few topics on which I cannot imagine my own opinions wavering. Nonetheless, in recent years, my meditation practice has revealed that this mindset does not mean I should be unwilling to discuss with those whose opinions differ from mine. Even when I feel steadfast in my beliefs, I should remain open to listening and doing my best to understand the viewpoints of those with whom I may disagree. In the worst-case scenario, no minds are changed. In the best-case scenario, some common ground is discovered and we can walk away with a newfound respect for one another.

A practice that fosters openness to finding common ground is the cultivation of maitri (Skt. loving-kindness) and karuna (Skt. compassion) for all beings, including those with whom we disagree. This entails approaching disagreements with empathy, understanding that we do not know the experiences that have shaped their perspectives over time and wishing for their well-being. Rather than seeing the other person as an opponent, Buddhism encourages viewing them as someone who, like oneself, seeks happiness and wishes to avoid suffering. This perspective can soften disagreements and lead to more constructive and compassionate conversations.

When debate seems useless, such as when the cultivation of maitri is purely one-sided, we might be reminded of the Buddhist teachings of upaya (Skt. skillful means). This concept refers to using wisdom in applying different approaches to help others understand or overcome difficulties. When it comes to disagreements, this involves choosing the right time, place, and method to discuss contentious issues or choosing not to engage if it causes more harm than good. It is about being pragmatic in dealing with disputes rather than insisting on being “right” or winning an argument. It would appear that sometimes there is a “wrong time” for a debate.

In turn, American practitioners such as myself might find it more productive to be deliberate with our energy and engage in contentious discussions only when there is a mutual willingness to listen and try to understand one another. Otherwise, it is likely to devolve into a personal, volatile argument. The practice of upaya, in this sense, might also entail respectfully removing ourselves from conversations when they become unproductive.

Nonetheless, while finding common ground and sometimes choosing to disengage can be skillful, Buddhism does not encourage passivity in the face of injustice, so we should not always revert to stepping away from difficult discussions, as they are vital for progress. So, when faced with fundamental disagreements, skillfully assessing the situation and practicing patience allows one to maintain inner peace without needing to immediately resolve or escalate the conflict. Even in disagreement, Buddhism would advise seeking common ground and focusing on shared values or goals that can unite rather than divide. This approach fosters a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect.

Promoting right speech and compassionate discourse with the Socratic method

Built on a foundation of right understanding and right speech, we might also consider applying a specific form of discourse known as the Socratic method to our discussions, which is dialogue-based teaching or argumentation that encourages critical thinking and exposes contradictions in one’s beliefs. Named after the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, it is a method of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals that is typically based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions.

Some key elements of the Socratic method are asking questions, thinking critically, searching for definitions, and relying on education. It is inherently dialogical, involving a back-and-forth exchange in which ideas are proposed, challenged, and refined through conversation. The method encourages deep thinking and reflection. By being asked questions, participants are guided to think critically about their beliefs, arguments, or the general topics at hand. This often leads to a deeper understanding or realization of gaps or contradictions in the thinking of both parties. Although this method is most common in academic settings, the Socratic method can be applied in everyday life to encourage thoughtful dialogue, improve understanding, and resolve conflicts.

The Socratic method is about seeking knowledge and truth through continuous questioning, dialogue, and critical examination. While it is unlikely that we will see professional and educated discourse on a US debate stage or in the mainstream media any time soon, the general public is more than capable of practicing these strategies, and we should all strive to do so. In an ideal world, our leadership would model these behaviors, but unfortunately that is not our current reality. Nonetheless, their unskillful methods should never serve as an excuse to spread hatred. Instead, we are all personally responsible for skillfully navigating political conflict.

It is immensely valuable for Americans to take part in democracy by doing things such as engaging in political discourse, speaking up for what they believe in, and voting. It is also abundantly clear that a significant portion of the public has become overly committed to the “side” they have chosen and thus refuses to listen to, let alone respect, the other. Buddhism advises approaching disagreement with patience, compassion, and diligence. It recognizes the value of differing perspectives while seeking to reduce suffering and promote harmony. When living or working with those with whom we disagree on significant issues, Buddhism encourages empathy and the wisdom to know when to engage and when to let go.

Nevertheless, the Buddhist teachings do not offer a black-and-white solution to navigating conflict and debate, especially not one that can effectively resolve the immense political polarization caused by corrupt media and defamatory campaign strategies. Instead, they can offer frameworks for navigating a hostile and divisive political landscape. If employed properly, these tools, combined with an emphasis on educated dialogue and an enhanced awareness of the factors that create a polarized community, can help to transform and heal the intense division within the United States in tremendous ways.

Related features from BDG

Buddhist Guidance on Using Social Media
Buddhistdoor View: We’ll Get the AI We Deserve

More from Dharma Bum Buddhism by Kassidy Evans