‘No one should de-emphasise the power of propaganda as a force that shapes hardline thoughts and actions.’ Photo: iStock
Public enemy? Mark Laskin, a British American Friend, on polarisation
‘I am not sure words of healing or gestures of cross-party unity will be enough.’
Ever since Machiavelli wrote The Prince in the early sixteenth century, world leaders have recognised that having an external enemy has united populations in fear and resentment. It binds them against a perceived threat.
It seems to me, now that the US election has been decided, that it is clear that one of Donald Trump’s major tactics was to internalise an external ‘threat’. This strategy causes dissension, distrust, puts neighbour against neighbour and sows unrest, with only the populist leader able to protect and save those who rally behind him (never her). Supporters become part of the ‘smart’ group who ‘got it’. (Many religious groups do the same thing when in a minority and see themselves as ‘persecuted’ in order to bind them closer together. The Brexit campaign was fought along the same lines.) There was allegedly greater harmony, national pride, and civic ownership when the USA had the common enemy of the Soviet Union and vice versa. Presidents from Eisenhower to Reagan reinforced this.
The current lack of an external superpower to bring US Americans or other conflicted groups together in fear is a cause (though not the only one) of internal friction. And it is promoted for political power. No one should de-emphasise the power of propaganda as a living force that shapes hardline thoughts and actions on all sides of the political spectrum, be it a Goebbels, McCarthy, Franco, Trump or a future populist.
One challenge for new leadership might be to make this crystal clear to the whole of the population. But right now that population is enmeshed in conspiracy theories and anger as well as a desire for ‘revenge’. It is deeply polarised, even though in the big picture the elements of this polarisation are of slight importance and should not manifest in hatred and violence.
Alternatively, the new leadership could use the proven strategy of Machiavellian solidarity behind the Prince, who creates an external enemy so fearful that it unites even those currently at each other’s throats. Then there is common cause against the perceived external threat. That threat needs to be feared and imminent. Climate change is sadly too obscure and non-imminent an enemy; too puny a foe may be North Korea or even Iran. How will this play out? How can new leadership react? I am not sure words of healing or gestures of cross-party unity will be enough.
Diagnosis is the easy part. With all those great minds out there we should be able to think of a strategy or surely we will pull ourselves apart. Peace, nonviolence and healing are needed now more than any time in living memory.
