What political advantage does the US President Donald Trump hope to gain by attacking Pope Leo XVI, for example, by accusing him of ‘catering to the radical left’?
For all his faults, Trump is still more transparent than a career politician. Consider his public admissions that oil has been a compelling motive behind much of the political violence in recent times.
In other words, Trump tends to give away the game, even if inadvertently. And the name of the game which is being given away at present is partisan politics.
The basic anatomy of partisan politics is as follows: when one side becomes sufficiently disappointing, the other side presents itself as an alternative which promises a new era.
While the promise of change can provide temporary appeasement, the new era does not actually arrive because what is new is merely cosmetic or superficial. Then the side which first disappointed now rebrands itself as the newest “alternative.”
And so history repeats itself and the promised new era is proven to be an illusion. In reality, nothing really changes.
For how many election cycles can voters be manipulated before the game is up? For the Americans, their lived experience of a country in decline led to a growing demand for a real change.
The traditional (and illusory) dichotomy between the two major parties no longer inspired fervent support. Such was the political climate under which Trump won the presidency not once but twice – by promising to be a real alternative to the self-serving establishment, especially by focusing on government-reforming and peace-making.
The failure of Trump to deliver what he promised has been, for lack of a better word, epic.
One can only speculate what his true intention has been, as well as if and why he changed. Be that as it may, there were concerning signs from the beginning and, no, I am not just referring to his character (or lack thereof).
What should have been a red flag, especially from a sober perspective, is the fact that Trump was bound to struggle to be an authentic alternative because, after all, he thrived on playing the same game of partisan politics.
Here are two things which partisan politics appeals to: pride and fear. How often have we seen people exhibiting pride in their unwavering support for a political candidate, party or view? How often do leaders appeal to the pride of their followers by flattering them?
Partisan politics engenders a superiority complex in those who, instead of learning to think critically and enter into dialogue, feel puffed up in their insular partisanship, even to the point of turning a blind eye when evil arises from within.
The flip-side of pride is fear which is frequently exploited in partisan politics to galvanise the base. This involves the labelling of people (eg. ‘radical left,’ ‘extreme right,’ or ‘terrorists’) who are then scapegoated as the greatest threat.
To be clear, there are legitimate issues to be addressed and resolved. Nevertheless, what drives partisan politics is not the complexity of reality, requiring patient dialogue, but reductionistic ideology, which is akin to a wrecking ball.
When people are blinded by pride and/or petrified by fear what easily ensues is the dehumanisation of one group by another group which is, practically and spiritually, one of the most dangerous things human beings can do to one another.
But dehumanisation (or demonisation) has become such a commonplace feature of our time that we who are conditioned to the mechanics of partisan politics may not even notice it when it happens. Nevertheless, it remains a great sin with deadly consequences.
Who has not participated in the dehumanisation of a whole group of people, or even a ‘whole civilisation’ as Trump did on Easter? Who has not succumbed to the tribal instinct to amplify evil suffered and justify evil inflicted? Who has not, in this way, become indifferent not only to innocent sufferings but also to the principle of justice itself?
Injustice is a serious sin. But doubling down on injustice raises it to the level of corruption which makes repentance and reconciliation difficult if not impossible. Such is the poison of partisan politics.
In the meantime, for the corrupt elite, the “benefits” of partisan politics are many. For example, the illusion of alternative allows them to maintain power, including by dividing and conquering.
In this way, partisan politics becomes a vehicle not only for empty promises but also for hidden agendas which do not serve the common good. Furthermore, every issue, by being framed as yet another partisan battle, becomes relativised and more easily dismissible, whether the issue be Gaza or papal opposition to war.
What then, is a viable alternative to partisan politics? The short answer is ‘non-partisan politics’ or politics which is informed by the pursuit of truth, justice and the common good rather than by partisanship, at least not the kind which cannot be made transparent in dialogue.
True dialogue is less about winning the argument and more about allowing the best argument to win, in a spirit of humility and mutual accountability, as we can see in the example of a healthy marriage. When dialogue fails society fails, starting from the smallest unit to the global. To reclaim dialogue is to resurrect so much more than politics.
Pope Leo XVI said in his recent Urbi et Orbi message: ‘[Christ] walked the path of dialogue to the very end, not in words but in deeds: to find us who were lost, he became flesh; to free us who were slaves, he became a slave; to give life to us mortals, he allowed himself to be killed on the cross.’
What is included in dialogue can be redeemed. By contrast, what is excluded from it –by the spirit of partisanship – risks becoming irredeemable, beginning within ourselves. Would that constructive transparency prevailed over corrupt secrecy!
‘Now the will of him who sent me is that I should lose nothing of all that he has given to me, and that I should raise it up on the last day.’ (John 6:39)
