As usual, I welcome this political season with yawns of indifference. I seek out someone who intends to vote in a fashion directly opposing my own, such that our ballots would cancel each other and we can both save ourselves the trouble of having to go to the polls.

Amid the rumble of pundits, rhetoric, op-ed columnists who can barely contain their sense of self-importance and shout over one another on primetime, individualism being kicked in the gut merely as a consequence of standing packt tight with others in an arena all staring lobotomy-like at one person who speaks, cheering at the pause cue, heated arguments sprinkled with smiles of The Grinch variety, pointed finger accusations back to preschool with he said she said; at the core of all this there’s a tablespoon of tulip nectar. It’s generally applicable to everyday exchanges among the public and in friend circles, but is most obvious near election time. When a speaker expresses an opinion which opposes the opinion of the listener, the listener has three choices in terms of their perception of the speaker: they may overlook the disagreement as inconsequential, decide that their view of the speaker has been negatively impacted, or change their own opinion to align with the speaker. I would guess that the first option is least popular among listeners. It’s sobering how successful the nazi party was with the last option.