Deepening The Divide

Doug Ford is the premier of Ontario, with a majority government. Let that sink in. Or if you're like me, don't let that sink in and drink several drinks to escape the inevitable instead.

But I'm not writing here to disagree with the politics of Mr. Ford (as much as I emphatically do), but rather to peek at what got us to this point. Not the point of his dumb luck bumbling his way to this high office, but the machinations that led enough of the electorate to actively propose this as a legitimate solution to their problems.

Politics has never been a game for the timid, nor for the one unwilling to get their hands a little dirty. It can turn allies into rivals, friends into betrayers, honest intentions into false hollowness. That's the nature of the game, the contest of ambition triumphant. But the players in the game have changed. In a very serious way, through the relatively recent prominence of social media, the electorate now have the larger, more sweeping voice than the politicians themselves.

Think about it for a moment. People running for office can only say so much behind a podium, on a televised debate, or repeat a platform message so much through sponsored social media. That's a very limited exposure compared to what we citizens post and share daily on those same social media outlets. A candidate can have a prominent social media presence, sure, and be sharp with all the latest methods of getting a message out there; but even with all that, it will shrink in comparison to what is shared among countless intersecting groups of people whose eyeballs constantly scroll screens everyday.

And the name of the game isn't just getting the message out there, it's manipulating a message for mass consumption.

The concept of 'Divide and Rule' (or 'Divide and Conquer') is a strategy that dates back thousands of years throughout human history, in conflicts upon every continent. It is an extremely effective strategy, likely why we still see a heavily modified version of it still used prominently in these times.

This is about the exchange of information between us consumers of content. See, the internet is very much a 'Wild West' in regards to information because unlike most of established print media or television media, there aren't factual standards to abide by. I myself am writing these very words on a forum which will be published by the internet for all to see potentially (ambitiously), and there are no standards of truth and misinformation to which I much follow before that availability can be made real.

Freedom of the press, online or otherwise, is a good thing because this is an opinion piece and I am not presenting this as news. And here's the problem: not all sources are as honourable and forthcoming about that as me (fucking right) and many indeed disguise political agendas or opinions as actual, factual, important news stories that your eyeballs need to absorb or digest. And if you dress a crooked mule with rotting teeth and a bad temper up with fancy clothes to make him look legitimate, some people will believe he's really a stallion.

This is really about manipulating and controlling the message. Political candidates can only reach us so much by the limited exposure they're capable of, but through other mediums or affiliated groups (Ontario Proud really reeks of this, but all sides of the political spectrum are guilty also) they can push agendas or attack opponents just by sheer presence of message. Many political parties have rightly surmised that on social media most people will tune out a message directly from them. But from an affiliate that with the right clothing seems to be independent? They might be more willing to at least listen, or perhaps even agree and share. And of course, those "affiliates" can write whatever they want in an effort to sway potential voters/supporters, in a way official party outlets simply cannot. Because for them there's nothing on the line, no serious reputation to maintain, little repercussion. The internet age.

The internet itself is not a wand of enlightenment nor is it a weapon of brutality, it is simply a tool. A tool we have created and has grown too quickly for us to understand or to know what to do with it. Like any tool, it can be used to construct or destruct and in the matter of politics it is hard to argue that its powers have not been of destruction.

Sullying the name of free speech: the internet has been intentionally used in this way to spread vague or untrue information with the singular intention of disrupting or influencing the ideas of others. And in that reality not only does it become so much more difficult to dilute truth from the murk of the swamp, but within that murk one untrue message can seem more true than others. Maybe so much more true that you dig your heels deeper, certain you've found the gem beneath the sludge. A real truth in this uncertain world of "fake news". And the more disagreement on this from friends or family, the greater the divide between us grows.

This is how extremism gains strength, with two sides of an issue breaking apart so much that they go in opposite parallel directions. The more they pull apart, the harder it becomes to bring it back close enough to actually have a reasonable discussion about issues. And this is what concerns me most: the discourse itself. Again, politics has never been a pretty business, but our disagreements should not be taken as personal attacks. Many politicians themselves who strongly disagree with one another can look past those differences of opinion and still be cordial with one another.

And maybe that's what the election of Trump and likewise Doug Ford tells us: a lot of people don't want that cordial discourse anymore. Someone who doesn't "play by the rules", a "man of action", an everyman who despite massive inherited wealth always wants to look out "for the little guy" without care of trampling established normality. Such extreme "virtues" of these figures only deepens that divide between us, to the point where you're either part of the team or an active opponent against it.

With increasingly extreme views it becomes nearly impossible to only partially agree, and toss in a smokescreen of questionable facts and easily disputed claims to an electorate mass-consuming social media, and an existing divide will only deepen.