Polarization: The New Political Tool of Choice
We all watched in shock as Donald Trump, the republican nominee for POTUS, turned his head and narrowly missed being assassinated. The shockwave of such a brazen attack in this day and age was far reaching. Condemnations flew in from both sides of the Aisles with many standing in solidarity with Trump at that moment.
We heard rhetoric from both sides that now was the time to turn down the temperature and have a more common sense debate about the future of the United States and for a moment it seemed like that assassin’s bullet had missed the intended target and instead killed the hostile discourse that in recent times has plagued American politics.
We thought wrong…
Reading through some news reports over the last few days, a picture popped-up in one of my feeds with the former British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak standing at a podium with the words “Stop the Boats” written on it. An eerie feeling came upon me as I thought “How apt such as statement would have been at the height of the Transatlantic Slave Trade in the 18th Century, to see a man of color championing a cause that prevented boats from bringing over people from ethnic minority groups?”
It was and is an eerie juxtaposition.
Then there was the story of a beauty pagent contestant, born in Soweto to a Nigerian father, who was targeted relentlessly even by a government minister as she entered the Miss South Africa competition. She has since dropped out because of the fever-pitched backlash against her because she wasn’t South African. The Xenophobic attacks from various levels of the society in a country that should know better than most the consequences of discrimination, were to say the least appalling.
Yet again, not surprising.
These incidents, while seemingly disparate, are symptomatic of a larger trend in global politics: the weaponization of polarization. Political figures and parties increasingly rely on divisive rhetoric and policies to galvanize their base and distinguish themselves from their opponents. This strategy, while effective in mobilizing core supporters, comes at a significant cost to social cohesion and democratic discourse.
The “Stop the Boats” slogan, for instance, is a clear example of how complex issues like immigration are reduced to simplistic, emotionally charged slogans. Such rhetoric not only oversimplifies the issue but also dehumanizes the individuals involved, fostering an “us vs. them” mentality that can have lasting societal impacts.
The case of the South African beauty pageant contestant highlights another troubling aspect of this polarisation: the selective application of principles. In a country with a history of apartheid and racial discrimination, one might expect a more nuanced and empathetic approach to issues of nationality and belonging. Instead, we see a regression to xenophobic attitudes, demonstrating how easily societies can forget the lessons of their own past when caught in the throes of divisive politics.
It’s crucial to acknowledge the role of media in this landscape. The constant need for engagement and clicks often leads to the amplification of the most extreme voices and positions. Nuanced discussions and moderate viewpoints rarely make headlines, further entrenching the polarisation we see in political discourse.
So, how do we break this cycle of polarisation? It starts with recognizing that these divisive tactics are often deliberate political strategies rather than genuine reflections of complex societal issues. As citizens and consumers of information, we must:
- Seek out diverse perspectives and engage with viewpoints that challenge our own.
- Support media outlets that prioritize nuanced, fact-based reporting over sensationalism.
- Encourage and participate in community dialogues that bring together people from different backgrounds and political leanings.
- Hold our political leaders accountable for divisive rhetoric and demand more constructive approaches to addressing societal challenges.
The recent riots in the UK, if anything, have given us a reason to pause and examine ourselves or at least it should have. Is this the best of humanity? What is the point of being divisive?
I remember a scene from one of my favorite political movies, Primary Colors, Featuring John Travolta and Larry Hagman as political rivals, In the scene Hagman playing Governor Fred Picker comes on stage to give a speech to a campaign crowd and He starts with this
“Now I really mean it, I wish everyone would just calm down a little and when I say everyone I mean the press and the TV crews and all my colleagues, all the folks who are making a living advising my colleagues. I think we need to calm down. This is a terrific country but sometimes we go a little crazy and maybe thats part of our greatness and part of our freedom but if we don’t watch out and calm down it all may just spin out of control.
You Know, the world is getting more and more complicated and politicians have to explain things to you in simpler terms so that they can get their little oversimplified explanations on the evening news and eventually instead of even trying to explain things they just give up and start slinging mud at each other and its all to keep you excited, keep you watching like you watch a car wreck or a wrestling match as a matter of fact, thats exactly what its like, professional wrestling — it’s staged and it’s fake and it doesn’t mean anything and that goes for the debates. We don’t hate our opponents, Hell half the time we don’t even know them but it seems its the only way we know how to keep you all riled up so what I want to do with this campaign is kind of quiet thigns down and start having a conversation about what sort of Country we want this to be in the next Century…”
I think its time we all heed this fictional character’s words and ask ourselves, what sort of Country and Communities we want in the next century because if we give in to polarisation, we are all lost!
