EXTREME POLITICAL POLARIZATION

EXTREME POLITICAL POLARIZATION

A few hours ago, the current president of the uniting states, Mr. Donald Trump, announced the start of his re-election campaign. The announcement was, of course, hot, controversial and barely natural, viscerally overburdened by a hatred against immigration, highlighting the struggle against the radical left .

The polarization and political violence that has characterized this American government, is certainly not a novelty, remember the events of the year 68, where the United States was a country with enormous racial tension, deep social problems, but these years are not the most prominent in the phenomenon of extremism and modio, Four presidents - Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley and John Kennedy - were killed and two others were injured - in one case seriously - in attacks.

 Under this political context I present this article, where I will explain why hatred and the politics of segregation should not be the way, and less in Colombia that is naturally violent, because that wild Manichaeism of finding in the political contradictor an adversary a enemy to be annihilated.

A Political Extremist….

A political extremist is someone whose beliefs fall outside mainstream societal values and on the fringes of the ideological spectrum. In the U.S., the typical political extremist is motivated by anger, fear and hatred — most commonly toward the government and people of different races, ethnicities and nationalities. Some are motivated by very specific issues such as abortion, animal rights, and environmental protection.

Political extremists oppose the core principles of democracy and human rights. Extremists come in many flavors on both sides of the ideological spectrum. There are right-wing extremists and left-wing extremists. There are Islamic extremists and anti-abortion extremists. Some political extremists are known to engage in ideologically driven criminal activity, including violence.

Political extremists often show disdain for the rights and liberties of others, but resent the limitations of their own activities. Extremists often exhibit ironic qualities; they favor censorship of their enemies but use intimidation and manipulation to spread their own assertions and claims, for example. Some claim God is on their side of an issue and they often use religion as an excuse for acts of violence.

Manichaeism in Colombia

From the late eighteenth century, as an effect of the French Revolution, with a convention in which the Jacobins, more boisterous and "contreras", sat on the left, and the more serene and conventional Girondins, on the right, came the Manichean effect that qualified those who went to the future as leftists, and those who anchored in the present and the past, as rightists (left-handed and curuchupas, to put it in a more Creole language). Such a classification has been respected since then, although it seemed to be closed when the classic parties, the Liberal and the Conservative, became museum pieces, but the "socialist" clothes with which they are covering sincere revolutionaries and populist cheaters, evoking the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, in the Russia that had been in the power of the Tsars.

It is known as Manichaeism to the doctrine of the Persian prince Manes (215-276 AD) and his supporters, author of a heresy of Christianity that began in the year 242 in Persia and spread through the Middle East and the Roman Empire.

The foundation of Manichaeism is dualism and its main belief is Gnosticism. There exist from eternity two opposing principles, conceived on the form of two kingdoms: that of light, which represents the physical and moral good, and that of darkness, which represents evil. The first, includes a heaven and a luminous earth, is the domain of God; and the other, placed below the deprived sky, is the domain of Satan and his dominions.

In relation to its etymological origin, the word Manichaeism or Manichaean is of Latin origin "manichaeus".

Political manichaeism is considered as the attitude of certain people, of dividing ideas, or people into two groups: those of the good side, and those of the bad side, in an irreducible form. As observed over the years, the Manichean politician always assumes that he is on the good side, and there is the part of society that falls into Manichaeanism and labels that the whole management of the government is wrong.

The problem of this phenomenon exhibits the problematic and the important matters of state of a simplified form, leaving aside the grays suppressing the complexity of the subjects; we can not continue in a democracy painted black and white, we have to accept all the shades of gray. The political consensus is based precisely on the wide field of grays.

We continue to believe the great politicians of the country, Álvaro Uribe and Vélez and Gustavo Petro just to set an example, only seek political revenues, satisfy their own interests, far from thinking about the good of our society, peace and reconciliation Do you see in the reprehensible political Manichaeism a weapon to stay in power, when to put an end to this political Manichaeism? Well, even though I am Uribista and love the ex-president, I often ignore many of his political considerations, that's what it is about, far from the fanaticism and ignorance that are ultimately the fuel of polarization in the country.

Polarization as a state refers to the extent to which opinions on an issue are opposed in relation to some theoretical maximum. Polarization as a process refers to the increase in such opposition over time."Some political scientists argue that polarization requires divergence on a broad range of issues based on a consistent set of beliefs. Others argue polarization occurs when there are stark partisan or ideological divides, even if the opinion is polarized only on a few issues.

Political scientists typically distinguish between two types of political polarization: elite polarization and popular polarization. "Elite polarization" refers to the polarization of political elites, like party organizers and elected officials, while "popular polarization" (or mass polarization) refers to the polarization in the electorate and general public. In either context, opinions and policy positions are characterized by strict adherence to party lines. Elite polarization and popular polarization can occur at the same time or independent of each other. A central issue in the study of political polarization is investigating the relationship between elite polarization and popular polarization, particularly any causal relationships between the two.

HATE

Do not accept the other because he thinks, lives and acts differently, because he is a member of a minority or because he is from another political party. These are the assumptions for hate speech:

a) That it is addressed to persons or groups of people of defined or determined vulnerability.

b) That leads to humiliation.

c) That implies a certain demonization or "perniciousness", that is, that has as its objective that others participate in actions to humiliate the group or vulnerable person.

d) Intentionality to denigrate, offender, insult or something more serious.

When three of these four assumptions are fulfilled, we find ourselves before a hate speech. This is not desirable, wherever it comes from, but if they come from those who represent us, it is even worse, then we are facing the politics of hatred.

Written be

 Omar Colmenares Trujillo