The other night I was watching Real Time with Bill Maher, as I normally do each week. It's a really interesting show. I was pleasantly surprised when his guest turned out to be a man who had actually written a book about the polarization of American politics-- which, obviously is in no part due to social media. I felt compelled to talk about this.

First, as in all situations with rhetoric, we need context. I'd like to pull from the farewell address of the great President himself-- and no, it's not Obama-- George Washington.

"[Political Parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force, to put in place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of the party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community".

He said it all folks.

Because of political parties, people are scared to be issue oriented. People who don't agree with each party feel torn because they are not being represented. It's a preventative measure to keep people from questioning the majority party. It's the real terror threat on this country.

When people start becoming ostracized for criticizing a certain party and therefore the government as a whole, we begin to have problems.

In fact, I blame this online rhetoric issue on the loss of the democratic party. We didn't reach people in a way that they would understand, and there lies the problem.

I'm not saying I don't understand the frustration, I do. I definitely do, but, I also realize that it's about strategy. No matter how angry you get and no matter how much someone may deserve it, you cannot expect to reach someone by insulting them to the point of submission. That doesn't work.

I see it on both sides too. I also know that this is where the animosity towards political correctness lies. People don't want to be yelled at, and they are 10 times more likely to become angry and isolated then to actually listen.

Rhetoric is so important, and though I'm not trying to police language (I believe in free speech), I am pointing out the benefits of phrasing your words in accordance to the situation.

Say you're arguing with your conservative uncle on Facebook. He says that he believes that abortion is wrong and you are strongly pro-choice.

You reply: "Your opinion is bigoted and you're being super hateful towards women. I wish you would get educated since you obviously have no information besides what your pastor tells you."

He responds: "At least I don't believe in murdering children. Why don't you get educated on the commandments. Life begins at a heartbeat."

Instead of you two going at it in a way that would ruin family relations, you could instead try:

You: "I'm sorry that you feel that way, but here is an article explaining the other side in detail. Medically life begins at brain activity. That's why we're allowed to cut life support for those that are brain dead, and that's the standard that modern medicine uses. It's detrimental for some women to become pregnant, and most abortions actually occur in women who were raped or are using contraception."

Him: "I have to respectfully disagree. It's my personal belief that life starts at conception, and while I appreciate an explanation of the other side, I still hold my beliefs. Here's an article explaining my side. Love you <3 See you in a few days."

Do you see the difference? Which way would you be more willing to listen to? I'm guessing it's the second one, but we seem to only be using the rhetoric of the first option.

Of course, it's okay to question. It's okay to be uncomfortable. You don't have to talk to people who make you feel threatened, but if you do want to confront other ideas, we have to change our rhetoric. People will not listen if we don't.

Rhetoric is the foundation of democracy. It collapses the moment rhetoric fails, and it's failing. We can already see the polarizing fallout.

We must remember the golden rule, and that education, not fear or force, is the best way to progress. Our system depends on you to educate, not to hate.