The Roaring Fork Valley spans three counties and several voting districts. It includes members of all major political parties as well as a wide variety of lifestyles. Does this diversity breed a divide? Nationally, a clear social and political divide is emerging between generations, genders and the two major political parties.
With this increasing divide, several acts of political violence have surfaced, transforming differing opinions into dangerous territory. From Aspen to Parachute, things have remained relatively peaceful in national comparison. There have been a series of protests in recent years, including “No Kings” marches and a rally for Charlie Kirk — the right wing political influencer who was shot and killed in September. Through this clear diversity in political affiliation and beliefs, is it possible to prevent differences from sowing increasing divisions?
Heightened tensions between political parties, locally and nationally, continue to grow following recent acts of political violence, notably the assassinations of Kirk and Melissa Hortman — the 61st speaker of the Minnesotan House of Representatives.
The Sopris Stars spoke with Eric Sgambati, a local high school civics and world history professor, who said that trends of political violence often arise “when there are factions of us against them” and “when one group of people feels like they are not represented …. or feel that they are targeted.”
He explained that while the motivations of perpetrators of political violence are often unknown or differing, the result often follows a pattern.
“There’s a hardening of views on both sides, and people are actually less likely to concede or listen to each other,” he said.
A cycle of blame develops, Sgambati said. In other words, political violence can perpetuate itself and create more tension between already opposing parties.
Four students at Roaring Fork High School, all in different places on the political spectrum, provided some insight. Notably, they all claimed to feel a strong divide, especially among young people.
“[Political violence] makes me sad. Our country was built on free speech, and, I mean, loving each other. Nowadays, it seems that as political violence is on the rise, you can be killed for your voice,” said Gus Cerrone, a junior who considers himself a Republican. “And if we can’t speak about our opinions, this country will not become greater. It will only become more divided and more divisive.”
Sam Stableford, a left-leaning senior, elaborated on his own experience after Charlie Kirk was killed.
“Even if the violence was against someone who I fundamentally disagree with, like Charlie Kirk, it makes me nervous and sad,” he said. “People who are in power tend to use [political violence] as a tool to further corrupt, blame and divide our nation. I think it does so much more harm than it does good … It continues to push the narrative that we’re broken as a nation, or that we can’t hold each other accountable, and that we can’t even have dialogue.”
All parties who were interviewed referenced social media as a key player in furthering divisions and increasing the likelihood of political violence.
Maddy Lucks, a left-leaning junior, stated, “Young people are becoming more skewed towards political extremes,” citing social media as a cause. “Your algorithm feeds you what you’ve already interacted with, so it supports one belief and makes you believe even more strongly in that belief, while pitting you against people who believe other things.”
Sgambati explained confirmation bias in social media.
“Our feedback loops are 100% things that we view,” Sgambati said. “People don’t interact with people they disagree with, nine times out of 10, unless they are yelling at them. That is why you’re seeing a divide.”
Despite each participant identifying differently politically, social media was the stated overwhelming culprit of political divide. When both the students and professor were asked how to reduce division, the verdict was open conversation.
Zane Bergman, a right-leaning sophomore, stressed that “social media has really divided us, and it’s almost impossible to have a respectful, open minded conversation with a lot of people.” He said that difficult conversations should be approached without an intention to disprove one another.
Sgambati emphasized the importance of listening with intention. “When we talk to people, we talk to them to get them to understand a point; we end up trying to attack or convince them. When the first thing we should be doing is listening, because there is common ground among everyone,” he said. ”If you start with the common ground, then you can talk about the differences. But if you start with the differences, nothing ever gets done.”
Lucks expanded on the “eye-opening” benefits of having conversations with people she disagrees with. “You’re more logically consistent if you can understand both sides of an argument,” she said.
Another phenomenon that seems to have gained traction over the last decade, but is nothing new, is bandwagon politics — when people agree with whatever it is their party is promoting— which has led to the election of political figures more based in party than in policy.
“There are districts in this country that are Republican. No matter what happens, they are going to vote for a Republican, and there are districts that are Democrat, that will vote Democrat no matter what,” Sgambati said. “Therefore, our political leaders are rarely talking to the middle … If you look at them, they talk to their own party now, they don’t talk to the American people.”
There can be a disconnect between people in power and the people of the opposing party. The villainization and othering of people based on disagreements arises when people separate themselves through labels.
Cerrone aims to challenge the group-think trend.
“I classify myself as a traditional Republican, but when I talk to people who classify themselves as Democrats, I find we agree on most issues and disagree on very few. When the conversation ends at ‘I’m a Republican, and you’re a Democrat,’ people think there is a much greater separation than there is,” Cerrone said.
Among the students, similarities in their values and what they consider to be the most important issues were clear. Their answers reflected the Roaring Fork Valley’s values — climate action, outdoor recreation, family, compassion and respect.
Students agreed that the deepening chasm of disagreement leads to a general lack of communication and misunderstanding, and that deep-rooted morality and a desire for unity are common threads.
“We can find common ground,” Bergman said, “so maybe we aren’t that different after all.”