Possibly another Watergate
To the Editor:
I remember the Watergate investigations. I remember how President Nixon was caught directing his aides, chief-of-staff, attorneys and several others to commit crimes, including obstruction of justice. The difference this time is the vice president is involved in some of the original bribery charge.
Unlike Watergate, many of Trump’s White House staff, including the inner circle, have left because of what is going on in the Oval Office. Those who disagreed were fired. Complete and absolute loyalty is the president’s No. 1 criteria.
The president has based his style on how his dictator friends around the world run their countries. Since he can’t really kill people, he belittles and smears them into submission.
Will the senators follow their oath to the country or to a Hitler-like oath to Trump by allowing him to stay in office? That would mean he can be even more dictatorial.
Imagine future presidents thinking this behavior is proper. Watergate’s laws kept the president’s power within the bounds of equal branches as the Constitution wanted. President Trump has done everything he can to ignore those laws and gain financially from being president now and in the future.
Partisan conflict is unnecessary
To the Editor:
We are currently in a toxic political climate. With such strong hostility between the varying political parties, the public is often deceived and misled, unable to trust any of our politicians. I, however, do not believe that this conflict between parties is necessary.
Using social psychology theories of conflict and peacemaking, I believe that we can begin to reduce polarization among political parties and work more effectively toward the common good.
The fundamental attribution error is one of the most important social psychological principles that plays a great role in furthering political polarization across our country. This error occurs when a person underestimates the effects of a situation on another individual’s behavior and overestimates the effect of the individual’s disposition. This is to say that the individual is acting badly because he or she is bad, not because they are in a bad situation, when that may not be the reality.
Recent studies have shown that both major political parties have increasingly poor views of each other that go beyond policies. They see each other as immoral and even unpatriotic; however, neither party is necessarily immorally disposed, even if their policies may seem immoral.
Understanding the fundamental attribution error is the first step toward negating its effects. By understanding the consequences of these assumptions, we can all try to be more aware of these thoughts and not let them create a bias in our minds. We must all remember that we are working together toward one goal: the common good.
By understanding the fundamental attribution error as a potential origin for our own biases, we can start to reverse its effects in an effort to begin to reduce partisanship and conflict in our political climate.