What we Americans go through to pick a president is not only crazy and unnecessary but genuinely abusive. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in a craven, cynical effort to stir up hatred and anger on both sides.

What we Americans go through to
What we Americans go through to
What we Americans go through to pick a president is not only crazy and unnecessary but genuinely abusive. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in a craven, cynical effort to stir up hatred and anger on both sides.
What we Americans go through to
What we Americans go through to pick a president is not only crazy and unnecessary but genuinely abusive. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in a craven, cynical effort to stir up hatred and anger on both sides.
What we Americans go through to
What we Americans go through to pick a president is not only crazy and unnecessary but genuinely abusive. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in a craven, cynical effort to stir up hatred and anger on both sides.
What we Americans go through to
What we Americans go through to pick a president is not only crazy and unnecessary but genuinely abusive. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in a craven, cynical effort to stir up hatred and anger on both sides.
What we Americans go through to
What we Americans go through to pick a president is not only crazy and unnecessary but genuinely abusive. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in a craven, cynical effort to stir up hatred and anger on both sides.
What we Americans go through to
What we Americans go through to
What we Americans go through to
What we Americans go through to
What we Americans go through to
What we Americans go through to

In this quote, Matt Taibbi criticizes the American political system and the process of electing a president, describing it as crazy, unnecessary, and even abusive. He highlights the immense resources—hundreds of millions of dollars—spent on political campaigns, which he believes are often used in a craven and cynical way. Taibbi is particularly concerned about how these campaigns exploit emotions, especially by stoking hatred and anger, creating division rather than fostering understanding or cooperation.

Taibbi’s frustration is directed at the negative campaigning and the tactics used to manipulate public opinion. He argues that, rather than focusing on positive change or constructive debate, political campaigns too often rely on creating fear and resentment between opposing sides. This, he suggests, leads to a polarized and toxic political climate, where people are encouraged to see the "other side" as an enemy rather than fellow citizens with differing views.

The use of hatred and anger as tools in political campaigns is central to Taibbi’s criticism. He points out how these emotions are deliberately stirred up to drive voter engagement, but at the cost of civility and democratic discourse. This strategy not only harms the integrity of the election process but also undermines the health of the nation’s political system, as it creates a hostile environment where cooperation becomes difficult.

Ultimately, Taibbi’s quote underscores the damaging effects of the political machinery that fuels division and anger in the United States. His call for change emphasizes the need for a more thoughtful, less manipulative approach to selecting leaders, one that encourages informed decision-making and unity rather than inflaming emotions and deepening societal rifts.

Matt Taibbi
Matt Taibbi

American - Author Born: March 2, 1970

Have 6 Comment What we Americans go through to

TVNguyen Thi Thao Van

I’m curious about the long-term consequences of elections fueled by hatred. Does this environment erode the foundations of democracy and civil discourse? How can society rebuild trust and encourage more positive political dialogue? Examining grassroots movements and reform initiatives might provide hope for a healthier future.

Reply.
Information sender

PTPham Trang

The description of the election process as ‘genuinely abusive’ is striking. How might this abuse affect marginalized communities or those already distrustful of government? Could it discourage voter participation and widen social divides? It would be important to explore strategies to make elections more inclusive and less combative.

Reply.
Information sender

THTran Thi Hau

This quote raises questions about accountability. Who should be held responsible for the cynical use of anger in campaigns—the candidates, the funders, or the media outlets? How can voters demand more ethical behavior without disengaging from the political process? Understanding this could empower people to push for change effectively.

Reply.
Information sender

HLHoang Le

I’m concerned about the psychological impact of such hostile election environments on voters. Does this constant exposure to anger and hatred contribute to political apathy or cynicism? How can citizens protect their mental well-being while staying informed and engaged? Discussing civic education and media literacy could be valuable here.

Reply.
Information sender

;;oc

Matt Taibbi’s critique makes me question the role of money in politics. How much do you think financial interests drive the negative tactics used during elections? Are there examples from other countries with less aggressive campaign spending that lead to healthier democratic processes? Exploring these comparisons might offer solutions to reform the American system.

Reply.
Information sender
Leave the question
Click here to rate
Information sender
0.28206 sec| 2576.641 kb