I just read the first paragraph of a WSJ article entitled “Poll Sees Widening Racial Divide On de Blasio’s Performance”. It reads as follows:

“The racial divide over New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s job performance continues to widen, with more than two-thirds of black voters approving of it and half of white voters disapproving, a poll released Tuesday showed.”

This is a seemingly matter of fact statement, which in many ways it is. Even assuming that the word “widen” is comparative of the status quo to prior polls where there was perhaps greater agreement on his performance, it is still a much smaller idea than the gap itself – “widen” is merely a matter of degree, whereas the focal point is the “divide”. The early polls may have simply reflected a honeymoon period that many, if not most, politicians seem to enjoy at the outset and may not necessarily be an indication of some nefarious divide. Nevertheless, this is a reminder of how language (and percentages) can be crafted to forward a particular agenda when another could so readily be employed.

For example, the writer could have said, “with two-thirds of black voters approving of it along with half of whites”, to represent the OTHER half of whites who did not disapprove. Further, in addressing the white halves, the author cleverly juxtaposed “approve” and “DISapprove” when a “half full” approach would have easily been unifying. The word “disapprove” did not have to be used at all. Of course, that would threaten the agenda of the entire article, but it would have been just as fair. This could just as easily have been an article citing statistics as evidence of de Blasio’s appeal to New Yorkers “with two-thirds of black voters approving of (the job he’s doing) along with half of whites”. That was not the intended message.

There is little in the rest of the article to suggest that this poll is any more unusual than the norm or that this division is anymore stark than any historical predecessor. It would be rare, maybe impossible, to uncover a poll where race was treated as the line in the sand for group identification (an already divisive approach to analysis), and still find complete harmony among the groups. There is not likely to be interspersed approval and disapproval among those polled free of racial connotation. There is always a difference because policies affect these groups in different ways according to life experience and economic grouping. While these tend to have a notable racial influence, they can not so readily be used to divide. Sadly, these other lenses are seemingly avoided in favor of drama and the dull, yet incessant thud of the racial jackhammer. This is not the sole domain of this article, but it thoroughly contributes to the issue.

We must remain sensitive to this type of propagandist idea-loading (on both sides of the fence and from every source) so as not to allow unwelcomed seeds to be planted in our minds, allowing the weeds of prejudice to strangle the wheat. This is especially germane when it pertains to unity and seeing each other as friend, not foe. This article adeptly highlights that de Blasio’s performance is not alone in division.