The fallacy of politics

I’ve written like three articles on politics. Each has its own sort of angle or point yet I’ve published none of them. It’s not that fun. This one especially is a rant. Yet, perhaps more of us need to see the fallacy of the current systems to start envisioning and building something that actually serves the interest of the people.

In any case there is this absurd notion that we’re born into our society and along the way you have to pick a side. You have no choice but to participate because: to live is to pay taxes.

And for some time you could pick a side in private and avoid discussing it. When I was a teenager, I recall my mom telling me “I never tell anyone who I vote for.” Of course, nowadays if you don’t shout your affiliation out of a megaphone you may be assumed by others to be on the “wrong” side.

What a silly and stupid notion this all is. No wonder super hero movies are all that Hollywood is pumping out. Everyone sees the world as “good” vs. “Evil”—us vs. them. And people wonder why we’re so polarized today! The foundational structure of our society is modeled like a Lucha Libre match.

It’s strange isn’t it? How both Canada and the US are actually multi-party systems yet we seem pitted with Left vs Right. That axis, that sole polarity that all the complexity and nuance of organizing millions of people and trillions of dollars has to somehow fit nicely on.

Have you ever worked at a company? In a group or organization that was trying to accomplish something? And even in that smaller domain did you not find complexity and friction in having everyone aligned? Have you ever worked at a growing company where the internal culture, direction and structure changed because it had to adapt to support the additional complexity as it scaled?

If you can recognize the complexity and nuance within running a company or smaller organization—can you even imagine the complexity of running the most powerful government on earth? One that is supposed to represent 300 million people and trillions of dollars and the world’s largest army?

Yet, public discourse on this absurd complexity is often limited to an overly simplified left-right axis. I don’t have context for how this has developed over time, yet it’s clear today that we are severely lacking nuance in how our culture views politics.

We’ve fabricated a system built on tension. Over time it is inevitable that the “two sides” will seek to separate themselves, even artificially, eventually landing on a few key issues that become wedges between the people: race, abortions, identity, immigration, etc.

There is no room for nuance, compromise or creative solutions—only division and absolutes. As the tension that this poorly built system imposes increases the two sides get further and further apart. Each side vies for power and “winning” thus driving the wedges deeper and deeper so that “switching sides” becomes unpalatable and potentially even unfathomable.

When either side is in power they will work to drive wedges even deeper, increasing division so that no one dare switch “their party.” And It doesn’t matter if you thought RFK Jr. was a viable candidate or not—the media decided he wasn’t by not having him or any other independents join the debates. So the emphasis on the polarity continues, further driving the abyss between the “two sides.”

I believe it’s necessary for us to recognize the absurdity of how the political systems are (not) working in the West today—or at least in the US and Canada. That if we let our political discourse continue to operate solely on this overly simplified left-right spectrum that we are inevitably driving people further and further apart creating an increasing sense of separation from one another. With separation there is (seemingly) less capacity for love and compassion. As we adopt the “othering” perspective of polarized politics we increase the illusion of separation and fail to recognize our innate unity—we all come from the same source and we all share being alive on this Earth.

As we break out of the delusion of polarity and picking a political team, we can start having nuanced discussion of particular issues—how novel! We may be seeing this happen already in other countries. Nayib Bukele is the first president elected in El Salvadoran history who was not part of either of the incumbent Left or Right party and who himself says he doesn’t align with the left or right. I have no idea if he’s a good leader for El Salvador as I don’t live there, know their history, or understand their cultural views and needs today. Yet, it’s interesting to see a shift away from the typical left-right polarity.

If we actually want to come together to solve the immensely complex issues of today, we’re going to have to learn to navigate nuance, collaboration and, yes, compromise. Looking at the upcoming US election, none of those lovely attributes seem to be on the table. So, if you’re undecided about the election maybe that’s OK. Maybe you’re recognizing the fallacy of this fabricated political polarity and are ready to embrace complexity and nuance. To actually collaborating on specific issues and discussing the specific implications of those individual issues, rather than just throwing them in Team Red or Team Blue’s bucket and forming an opinion based on the associated color.

And while the realization of this fabricated polarity can at times feel hopeless—it certainly has for me—it also creates spaciousness. It creates an opening in our minds for new ideas and new ways of thinking. While the solution may not be obvious or apparent, holding this space means we can recognize new ideas and new ways of thinking as they trickle in, allowing for creativity and breaking out of our current rigid structures of political organization and how we come together as a society.

I'm not trying to argue in favor of any candidate. That's not the point. The point is the political theatre, from both sides, that aims to manipulate and garner "likes" rather than thoughtful discussion or contemplation of actual policy.

As we near the election, and one side seems to be slipping in the polls, they will grab at exceedingly desperate tactics to "win your vote"—mainly calling the other side racist. Is Trump racist? I don't know, but these videos offer an interesting perspective.

And, again, I'm not trying to convince anyone who to vote for. Both parties will succumb to shady tactics and manipulation to win—because it works. My point is for us to stop letting it work. The amount of data and reporting and half-truths and straight up lies out there is unmanageable. We can't see it all, so we can't really make an informed decision. We will never have the full picture.

I don't know how we fix this problem. But, the first step is recognizing it. This utter mess that is political theatre may seem hopeless, yet I find it encouraging. Instead of hardening our political positions based on what is inevitably half-truths, manipulations and incomplete information, we can recognize it and build compassion.

You can see the tactics at play. We know they are effective and that they work to entrench people within the polarity. We, the people, are at a disadvantage. Recognizing this we can hold more space for our friends and family who favor the "other side." By embodying curiosity, understanding and compassion we move towards unity. If we stay divided, the political game continues to drive us apart where neither party has an incentive to be honest, forthright, collaborative and creative. Instead, they see the division working and push that wedge deeper and deeper.

So, vote or don't vote. Whatever. To me, the only thing that actually matters is that regular people (that's you and me!) work to build more compassion, understanding and curiosity for our neighbours, friends, crazy uncles, and everyone else. If we recognize how the system works to divide us and trap us in rigid frameworks of thinking, we can have compassion when we recognize others (or even ourselves) are stuck in those limiting ways of thinking—stuck in the manufactured polarity. From there, we can hopefully develop compassion, understanding, curiosity and eventually creative collaboration—as it's collaboration than transcends competition.

So, whatever your stance on this election, ask yourself if you can be more curious. How far can you lean into curiosity rather than being “correct?” Can you open yourself to more understanding, compassion and collaboration? Can you see with your heart rather than just your intellect?

"Prejudice of any kind implies that you are identified with the thinking mind. It means you don't see the other human being anymore, but only your own concept of that human being. To reduce the aliveness of another human being to a concept is already a form of violence." —Eckhart Tolle