The polarity of politics: a deadening discourse

The infantile behaviour of President Trump has been demonstrated yet again through his refusal to communicate or visit with the Prime Minister of Denmark after being denied the sale of the territory of Greenland.

Though he is not the first to request such a sale, his inability to compromise is a worrisome trait that has contemporarily not been seen with such lack of restraint.

The Danish Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, quipped that the request was absurd, as buying and selling countries and their corresponding populations is a process that should be kept in the past.

Of course, this was not well-received, as Trump cancelled his engagement with Greenland and quickly replied that he “thought it was a very not nice way of saying something,” as it wasn’t himself to whom she spoke, but to the United States as a whole, and that “you don’t talk to the United States that way, at least under me.”

The fragility of Trump’s self-perception can be felt through the context of such continuous statements, as disagreements are taken as personal denial due to the fact that his ego has built its survival upon the validation of external sources.

In order to avoid this denial of self, Trump places this rejection onto the United States as a whole, and then continues to overcompensate by projecting any negative criticisms onto his opponent before using his resentment as a tool in which he can costume the good of his opponent onto himself.

With such interactions in mind, the basis of politics could be attributed to that of polarity, whereby survival depends upon the dismantling of opposing truths in order to retain the assembled truths of those grouped through ideology and class distinctions.

The reason that compromise feels so foreign to political discourse, though this claims to be its primary aim, is that either party has built the basis of their platform upon its acceptance by the majority.

If it is not accepted, it is deemed to be false and their leadership questioned. If only one truth must survive, it is usually at the hands of those who are unconscious to alternatives.

Trump, therefore, poses a prime example of this fragility of the ego, whose sole purpose is the survival of polarity in the hopes that by destroying any alternative realities the constructed truth can remain intact.

If you only see the surface, there remains no room for the details of expanse and, given that expansion relies on growth, the consciousness of polarity prefers the closure of its surface for fear of being found false.

This is evident through the way in which Trump overcompensates by silencing the communication with his opposition in order to preserve his own ideal of truth by destroying that which displeased rather than developing it within himself in order to meet at a compromise.

The Tao of compromise is that it allows for connecting to the centre of a discussion rather than clinging to its opposition.

But can this really exist within a system built upon the separation of thought?

Leave a Reply