1) Social media: Recently I made some pretty strong political posts on Facebook about Benghazi. Then I felt badly and was afraid to check FB in fear of what responses I would find. Why did I feel that way? My liberal friends post their memes all the time, but the conservatives are shy about expressing their opinions. We are bothered by what people will think. But why is this the case? If they are truly our “friends” on Facebook, we should be able to post what we really think and feel, right? We read our friends’ posts and even appreciate their notes about their pet issues and projects, their families and even the difficulties they have overcome in their lives.

It has been said that small minds talk about people, others talk about events and still others talk about ideas. I post about a variety of things: skiing, sunsets, teaching issues, books, travel and politics. I think that social media is the place to exchange all kinds of ideas, and we see everything on social media; funny events and family pictures and celebrity scandals all over our Facebook pages, whether we subscribe to them or not. It is certainly wonderful to begin, rekindle and maintain connections with friends old and new, to see their families grow, marry and create grandchildren. But as I tell my husband (who always complains about the emptiness of Facebook), you create your own page and your contacts with your friends. If you find the content to be dull, find more enlightened friends.

2) Political posts: can they change people’s minds? So, why is it tricky to post about politics? I think the internet has made it easier to find all kinds of angles on any event that you wish to follow, some legitimate and some fabricated. And if we read our articles or blogs only from our favorite political side, it is easy to get revved up and to post articles and memes that echo our political fervor. I much prefer posting articles to memes since one can answer and debate these ideas within articles, while memes are thrust into one’s face to propagandize, not to critically analyze.

Obama is the first president elected with internet expertise. He definitely knows how to campaign. But he is also the first president wherein the internet could be his undoing. He may tap reporter’s phones, the NSA may tap other phones and track emails, and the IRS may punish those on the wrong political side, but the internet continues to counter his statements with facts and stories that dispute the statements made by his administration. Those who fight the corruption and cronyism of his administration will not give up, just as those who disagreed with the Bush administration keep up their criticism even to the present day.

There are some issues wherein one can reasonably debate both sides: immigration is one of these and one which, I admit, I have not been closely following. But then it gets to the point where actions are either right or wrong, and sometimes one can become trapped on the “wrong” side without realizing it. For me, the president’s actions before, during and following the Benghazi attack are wrong on every level. But my liberal friends still defend him. How difficult is it to just admit that, with more information, that one’s former support of one side seems to have been the wrong thing to do, even if in doing so one is deviating from the party line? Is that even possible, or do people just blindly follow the talking points of their party without critically analyzing the events and facts? Does the internet make it easier or more difficult to change sides, to thus align our politics with our innermost values? Or do our political alliances limit us to being tied to a political party regardless of what turns out to be right or wrong? I would encourage my liberal and Democratic friends to seriously re-evaluate their support of Obama, who is not turning out to be quite the “hope and change” president they expected. How many scandals does it take to outrage the Democrats enough for them to pull support from their president, or do the ends always justify the means? It should be acceptable to change your allegiance to Obama. If the president has the military shoot citizens in an attempted coup to become dictator, would Democrats finally change their support for him then?

3) Too much stress upon “winners” and “losers?” Right or wrong, win or lose. It also occurred to me recently that perhaps our society places too much important upon “winning” and “losing” in our lives and in our politics. Ours is, or was, a competitive society where the strong survive. As I write, the Red Sox parade is occurring in Boston. Hurray for them. We live in New England, but we are barely aware of organized sports, since wins and losses (exciting as they are) are often transient, here today and gone to a different team tomorrow.

But with the recent government shutdown, it seemed that what mattered most to those in Congress and the media was who “won” the shutdown so they could blame the other party and thus benefit from their distress. Facts, purposes, rebellions did not matter. The media, already leaning toward one major party, distorted the sources of the shutdown in order to damage the other party as much as possible. If you repeat a lie often enough, people buy it as the truth. “Obama won, the Republicans lost.” Only after the mean and “racist” Republicans caved on defunding Obamacare did the Democrats begin to waiver in their support for the disastrous ACA. No credit given to the courage of those who stood for their principles. No, destroy them, and then we’ll change our minds and change the media’s approach and all will be well again.

Then you also have the loss of civility. If it is all about who wins and who loses, then you can call the losers or even those with whom you disagree any names you want. The political parties become bullies and the polarization between them becomes unworkable. Consider the names that Democrats called Republicans: racist, unhinged, legislative arsonists, people with “a bomb strapped to their chest”, blatant extortionists, hostage takers, and worse. Democrat rarely debate the facts of the issues. They desecrated Romney’s character over the summer of 2012, calling him a liar again and again. I could never discern what specific lie they were referring to. No matter about the specifics, if we call them enough names, they will lose their credibility.

The problem then is trying to work with those whose reputations you have ruined. The American public decries the loss of civility, but we love the competition (imbedded in our society) that leads to “winners” and “losers.” We complain that Congress does not work together to solve the issues of the day (deficits, unemployment, staggering taxes and debt), but would you want to work with the people who had just called you a liar and a racist? I have heard that if it is difficult to work with someone, you should look in the mirror yourself and find who is to blame.

4) Working together to solve problems: Wouldn’t it be more productive if, instead of blaming the others and calling them names, our political leaders would actually meet together and openly exchange ideas and work toward a solution? The solutions do not have to reside in either one party or the other; there must be many ideas that could be aired and brainstormed with others to find solutions that could be great but which have not occurred to anyone yet. Could the politicians let down their defensive barriers and group think paralysis long enough to solve these issues? Could they actually think of the good of the country instead of their own seats and the pork projects for their districts?

Here are two ideas for beginning this process or cooperation and reducing the national debt: my dream, admittedly naïve as it is, would be to ensure that each congressman and senator eliminated at least one pork barrel project in their district, thus saving tax paying dollars for everyone and reducing the debt. We could also institute a 10% cut across the entire national budget as the first step in reducing that national debt. My hope would be that good managers could eliminate what must be at least 10% of waste across the board. Politicians would meet and consider the best solutions to the problems apart from their own district’s benefit. They would be receptive to facts and ideas on the other side of the aisle, because neither side has a monopoly on truth. And they would be guided by facts, not feelings. Much of the best intentioned legislation has turned out to be a disaster because it was not thought-through carefully enough. Politicians should be free to admit their errors and work toward a solution. It should not be too hard. They are adults, are they not?

Perhaps if the people of the U.S. become fed-up enough, they will indeed elect a new set of representatives and a new third of the Senate. Perhaps we need a new crowd of fresh faces to begin the respect, courage, honesty and hard work that should characterize our political parties as well as the nation itself. Ours is a particularly unique nation and it should be able to recover from the intense hatred and dysfunction that this partisanship has created.

This is a vanity sparked by a series of Benghazi posts I made on Facebook. I welcome your responses to this. Do you ever post on social media?

Benghazi ping....let Republicanprofessor know if you want on or off this ping list (which is usually not a vanity....).

3 so-called “friends” on FB are no longer speaking to me. Why? I responded negatively to someone who posted an attractive photo of the Obama family with the inscription: “Why Republicans hate the Obama family.” I was outraged at the suggestion that Rs hate the family and, of course, the implied racism. For once, I took the poster on. I was attacked viciously!

The Left is not only insane, delusional, dishonest, they are completely thin-skinned as well. Sick bastards! Rant off.

You are either preaching to the choir or to the insane (commies) so short answer......no. It’s a real good way to weed out the crazy people you may be associated with though. ;)

Obama is the first president elected with internet expertise.

Although I haven't seen your posts before, respectfully, I stopped reading right here. What supporting evidence is there for that statement?

As for the gist of posting politically on social media, I can only say this. We can only give hope and camaraderie to those like minded people out there if we express our true sentiments. If it means losing some acquaintance, so be it. They weren't worthy of friendship anyway

My liberal friends post their memes all the time, but the conservatives are shy about expressing their opinions

That in my opinion is your biggest mistake....I long ago ran off my so called liberal friends. I had no idea what grief they brought into my life till I got rid of them and have not looked back. The most negative people one can imagine and all were intent on lecturing about things they were completely inept at. I compare it to how good it feels when you are hitting your thumb with a hammer and finally just stop doing it!!

Kumbaya, man.

We are beyond that.

The democrat party, as evidenced by the current resident of the Whitehouse and ferocity of his defenders in the Senate and Congress, has been completely taken over by Marxists who's only goal is to "fundamentally change America", wiping away our traditions, customs, freedoms, and strength.

Our problem is them, and their problem is us. We can't solve both.

The sooner we all realize that, the better.

The longer it takes for us to realize that, (rest assured that THEY realize that) the further away we will move from our founding principles.

That is the persistent mainstream media theme.

WE HATE, therefore, we can be ignored.

WE HATE OBAMA, we are racists that hate the idea of a Black President, etc., so no policy difference with the Obamunists can be legitimate.

We want kids to starve and die, so nothing we say about Food Stamps can be legit, etc...

This is a basic liberal debate tactic, playing to the sense of moral superiority most libs use to cover their faults.

Most don’t even realize they do it, so ingrained in the neural linguistic programming by the media.

"Political Posts on Social Media: Can they have an effect?"

As the Democrat Party is no longer a political party but a criminal organization, insulting Liberal Democrats is akin to insulting the Chicago Mob, so, yes, you're negative posts could have a negative effect.

You could, as they, "Wind up sleeping with the fishes."

/SARC

I have a FB page under a pseudonym (close family/friends know it’s me, everyone else thinks I’m ‘Mr. X.’); I very graphically state what’s on my mind related to politics.

I actually started said page when I was working in academia so that way neither my students or my ultra left wing “colleagues” couldn’t say anything. And they did/do look.

There is reverse McCarthy-ism out there, no doubt.

I rarely post my opinions on Facebook, but I do post particularly convincing video or graphics that make the point, usually with a comment such as “Interesting perspective . . .” or “One way to look at it . . . “

My “friends” rarely reply to these posts, but I know for a fact that they are read and shared. I’m sure some just skip them, but it gives opportunity to the ignorant to watch or read without anyone knowing it.

I do know that one particularly unreasonably liberal friend recently “unfriended” me. This is a lady whose driving theological and personal ethos is solidly conservative, yet who continues to spout Democratic talking points because it’s been the way of her family for generations. I’m sure my posts caused her great internal conflict, and that’s OK. Sometimes it hurts to think.

Just being quietly persuasive, my tiny contribution to the cause.

The way I look at it is...There are 315,000,000 or so people in the US.

No matter what I say or do on a social media website there will be a whole bunch of people that agree with me. So many in fact I could never live long enough to meet them all.

Why would I worry about a few a$$holes that are offended by what I say when there isn't the time in a day to talk to the huge group of people that agree with me?

O.J. Simpson still has friends, and he cut his wife's head off for Cripes sake! Why the eff, in a world that could like someone that cuts off heads, would you care what people think?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.