The Observer XIX.2 - From the Other Side: Political Polarization in Today's World

Monday,January16,2023

DearReaders,

Welcometothisyear’sFallEdition,orissueXIX.2,of TheObserver, “FromtheOther Side:PoliticalPolarizationinToday’sWorld.”Wearethrilledtobringthiseditionback onlineandtoprintforreaderstoenjoy!Itbringstogetherawiderangeofissuesand ideasaboutpoliticalpolarizationintheworldtoday.

Polarizationhasbeenkeenlyfeltincountriesaroundtheglobe,especiallyinthelast decade.Thisissueseekstoweavetheseexperiencesintoabroaderconversation aboutwhatthesedividesare,howtheycametobe,andwhatwecandotoovercome them.WebeginwithapiecefrommyselfaboutAndrewTateandtheriseofthe misogynistpodcaster.FromNaomiDerfel,apiecethatpromptsustoconsiderour roleinYe’sdownfall.SylviaKathirkamanathanwritesanarticle thatquestionsthe efficacyofJustStopOil’sextremetactics.Movingawayfromsocialmediato government,JohnMinyenreflectsonthepoliticalandeconomicturmoilintheUnited Kingdom.Then,SydneyRobinsonbringsalookintothegrowingdividebetween Americanpoliticalparties.MeghanHembruffconcludesthisissuewithanexploration oftheunitywomenfindineventhemostcontentiousofcircumstances.

Iamproudtobringyouthesearticlesfrommyincrediblestaff,andhopethisedition invitesyoutoconsiderhowyouencounterpolarization.Iwouldliketothanktheteam fortheirhardworkinthefallterm,andI’mlookingforwardtoourfinalissuecomingin April!Ifyouhaveanycommentsorconcerns,pleasecontact TheObserver at theobserver@qiaa.org.Ifyou’dliketocontributeanarticleinthefutureorapplytojoin ourteam,followusonInstagram(@theobserver.qiaa)orFacebook(TheObserverQueen’sUniversity)forupdates.

Lorem Ipsum dolor

Lorem Ipsum dolor

Lorem Ipsum dolor

Lorem Ipsum dolor

Lorem Ipsum dolor

Lorem Ipsum dolor

Lorem Ipsum dolor

Lorem Ipsum dolor

No, I Don’t Own a Bugatti - But Neither

DoYou

by:Alexandra Paul

There has been a litany of controversial figures who coloured the year 2022, yet nonehavequiteirkedorperplexedmeasa certain new breed of political influencers –deeply misogynistic male podcasters. Whilethismayseemlikeanichecornerof the budding social media content creation industry, it has skyrocketed in popularity over several months. Their clips routinely goviral,especiallyonTikTok,andcomment sections are flooded by intense debates, usually with a fair share of insults and taglines like “What colour is your Bugatti?”

Thiscatchphrase,whichhasbeenparroted and parodied in equal measure, is commonly used to refer to kickboxing-star-turned-podcaster and BugattiownerAndrewTate.Myansweras a twenty-something student is, like most people, that I do not own a Bugatti – but I don’t think that makes me any less qualified

qualified to speak about success. Tate’s decision to spend an exorbitant amount of money on a car does not make him wiser than anyone else and even kicked off a chainofeventsthatrecentlylandedhimin a Romanian jail cell on charges of traffickingandsexualassault.However,he often flaunts his wealth as evidence of his success, supposedly facilitated by his warped“alphamale”philosophies.

While he is now banned from most social mediaplatforms,Tate’snamehasbecome almostsynonymouswiththisnewepidemic ofpoliticalinfluencerswhoencouragetheir young, male audience to adopt their violently sexist ideas. They frame it as a defence of masculinity while lamenting the feminization of society – a problem male political figures have been supposedly combatting

A woman wearing headphones. Sascha Kohlmann

combatting for centuries. Though most reasonable adults would recoil in disgust frommanyofTate’sproposals,likebeating female partners into submission, they are not his target audience. Instead, Tate and the unfortunately growing number of copycatsareinterestedininfluencingboys and young men, making their rhetoric all the viler. They claim that society (or, in a gross misuse of the Wachowski sisters’ classic film, “the Matrix”) wants to make men weaker and that it is their responsibility to combat that by embracing “traditional”masculinity.Someofthisfocus isonbreadwinnerstatus,encouragingmen to centre accruing wealth over all else, or on physical strength and appearance. However, much of it pertains to men retaking dominance over the Big Bad –women.

Unrestricted internet access and the incessant goal of social media algorithms to keep users online have led to a recognizable pipeline directing young men from innocent apolitical content, usually relatedtofitnessorgaming,tocontentfrom conservative political commentators and, eventually, hate-fuelled extremists like Tate.Ithelpsthatmanycreatorsfromthese three distinct groups have a major overlap in their intended audience, but the further down the pipeline they come from, the moresinistertheirintentionsbecome.Their audiences gain a community and a sense of purpose. These young men feel as though they have stumbled onto a secret blueprint to solve one of society’s biggest problems. Of course, like any good con man,Tateissellingasolutiontoaproblem heinvented–thefeminizationofmen.But what does this mean for the rest of us, especially

especiallywomen?

Misogyny has almost always had a foothold in internet culture. Perhaps the most infamous example is the “incel” or involuntarily celibate subculture, which originated between several forum sites, including 4chan and Reddit. Young, single men who feel shunned for not meeting societal expectations and thus feel undesirable to women use forums to express their anger. However, they do not blameasocietythatcreatesunrealisticand harmful standards and roles of masculinity –instead,theyplacemostoftheblameon women. They argue that all women demand men meet these strict criteria and arethereforeresponsiblefortheirmiseries. These communities have even spawned acts of terrorism, including the 2018 van attackinToronto.WhileTate’sphilosophies arenotexactcopiesofthoseexpressedon incel forums, they are not dissimilar either. Tate’s emphasis on women as the enemy and the erosion of male dominance resonates with the same entitlement that incel platforms are predicated on – an entitlement to ownership over women, especially their bodies. Unfortunately, Tate’s reach has exceeded the traditional sites incels often occupy, boasting 3.8 million followers on Twitter, the only mainstream social media platform he can stillaccess.Inseveralcountriesaroundthe world,scoresofyoungmenarebuyinginto hisideas.

This has undeniably triggered a new wave ofviolentmisogynyinonlinespacesasthe existinganonymityoftheinternetenhances the ability to verbally abuse women. But this influx of sexist comments has not stopped

stopped at invading social media commentsanddirectmessages–manyof these Tate fanboys carry these attitudes offline,empoweredbythesheernumberof theirlike-mindedpeers.Thishasbecomea particular issue in classrooms as a sizable portion of his audience is no older than fourteen. Female teachers have taken to onlineplatformstoexpresstheirdifficulties with managing the barrage of questions, andevendisrespectfulattitudes,stemming from their students’ adoration of Tate and similar misogynists. What is born online rarelystaysthere–theseinfluencershave offline consequences for the women who interact with these young followers, and I shudder to think how they will treat the womenintheirlivesastheyage,especially romanticpartners.

The obvious question is what can we do? How do you prevent boys and young men fromstumblingdownapathofvilesexism? Perhapstheeasiestansweristhatparents should monitor their children’s internet activity, using parental controls to restrict contentonsiteslikeYouTube,TikTok,and other social media platforms. But a policy of abstinence in this case, as with many others, rarely works. Along with efforts to prevent these influencers from reaching their target audience by pressuring companiestosafeguardtheirusers,adults need to understand what material is out there and have sensitive conversations with the young men in their lives. Only by recognizing a destructive pattern can you stop it, and this issue cannot be left to fester. As women, we often exhaust ourselvestryingtoexplaintomenthemany nefariouswayssexismcreepsintoourlives whentheyfailtorecognizeit.unfortunately

Unfortunately, Tate adds yet another burden to the growing pile. But men are alsoonthehookfortheseconversations–whenTate’sfanboysrefusetotakewomen seriously, it is up to their male leaders to lead them away from his rot. These discussions are as long as they are draining, but they need to be had lest we be left to reap the consequences years downtheline.

Thrown to the Lions: The Public

Destruction ofYe

by: Naomi Derfel

The “tortured artist” trope has both facilitated countless celebrities' success and been perpetuated by those celebrities seekingfamethroughanymeanspossible. Theseanticsparticularlythriveintheageof social media, where through websites like Twitter and Instagram, celebrities become animitationofthemselvesforthepublicto ridicule and psychoanalyze as their Freudian test subjects. Social media enables a mass subconscious parasocial relationship between celebrities and the publicwherethecelebrityhasanenormous impact on popular culture but the public refusestoassumeresponsibilitywhenthat impact is negative. Further, it is when a celebrity becomes a superficial imitation of themselves, that is, a persona – a symbol ofsomethinglargerthanthemselves–that thepublicisalsoridofguiltwhenthatreal person behind the persona suffers. The trajectory

trajectoryofKanyeWest’s,or“Ye’s,”career exemplifiesthisdystopianphenomenon.Ye deteriorated in front of the entire world, mentallyandpolitically.Thepublicrejoiced in Ye’s downfall yet blamed him when the actions they emboldened for their entertainment had harmful social consequences.

Ye has remained an undoubtedly controversial figure throughout his career. However, in the earlier days of his fame, hisproblematiccommentswereconsidered contentious at worst and came at the low price of great music, shoes, and clothes. Evenmorerecently,Yecontinuedtoamass support in all his business ventures, even among political adversaries, when he donnedaMAGAhatforthefirsttime.

From strictly a publicity perspective,Ye hit the

Ye West performing at The Museum of Modern Art's annual Party. Jason Persse

thenailonthehead.Seeingcelebrityafter celebrity announce the same mainstream (that is, leftist) views as if their arrival on the political scene was the most groundbreakingly perilous yet profound thing to hit TMZ was getting boring. From his star-studded weekly “Sunday Service” to the release of countless chart-topping albums to becoming a Forbes-certified billionaire,Yewasunstoppableintheeyes ofthoseacrossthepoliticalspectrum.Ye’s fame was furthered by his tumultuous relationship with his now ex-wife Kim Kardashian, as his tweets and interview sentiments provided a drama-fiending public a riveting look into the mind of someone in an extreme state of mental turmoil.

Ye’sinitialpublicizationofhisconservatism was a great thing for conservatives: he made being right-wing cool again. He was talking about important issues within the Black community that white conservatives werefailingtosuccessfullydeliverbyvirtue of their skin colour, such as Planned Parenthood’s eugenic history, Black Lives Matter’s suspect financial records, and Obama’s — and the entire Democratic Party’s — lack of change in high-crime BlackareaslikeChicago.

Withthecurrentpoliticaldivide,thesupport ofaninfluentialfigureforthealienatedright was invaluable. Racism has been sustained in Democratic circles by white politicians who tell the Black community thatiftheyvoteforTrumpthey“ain’tblack” and simultaneously buy the Black vote by promising welfare services that only serve to eternalize government dependency and poverty. The Democratic party’s deceptive poverty

tactics are able to permeate below the surface because they remain passionately unchallengedanddefendedbyuneducated celebrities.Ofcourse,racismexistsonthe Republican side too. As Ye himself said, everyone is racist. America is a racist country.Youjusthavetopickyourpoison. ButRepublicanshavedoneagreatdealof work to improve the lives of Black Americans. For instance, Trump’s First StepActhasbeenthefirststepinundoing the damage done by Biden’s 1994 Crime Billbyloweringsentencesandreducingthe number of minorities in prisons. It goes without saying why coverage of the First Step Act on social media and in mainstreamnewsisobsolete.Ye’ssupport could have fostered recognition of such anti-Black Democratic policymaking. Through popularizing conservatism, Ye could have helped bridge the current politicaldivide.

“Could have” is the key term. The political discourse Ye engaged in was more promising than effective as any legitimate concerns were obscured by extremist language precipitated by his mental and emotional decline. Rather than saying that theBlackcommunityisbeingfooledbythe Democratic party into remaining in a state of pseudo-slavery, or “mental slavery,” as he called it, he said that 400 years of slavery was a choice. Rather than expressing his frustration with online censorship, he blamed it on the Jews, purportingtheage-oldantisemitictropethat Jews control the media (and the entire world). Would the people have listened if Ye simply said the former of these arguments? If he did not jump to the extreme?Theanswerisunfortunatelyno.

Kanye West is first and foremost a celebrity; pop culture is his industry, not academia and politics. Gaining attention throughextremism—akabeinga“tortured artist” — is his brand. This is what people forget. Taking him seriously is what has escalated and fueled the tremendous influencehehasoutsidehiswheelhouse.

It was primarily other conservative figures, ofallraces,thateitherrefusedtodenounce Ye’s comments or outright justified them withtheexcusethattheywereperipheralin thefaceofothermeaningfulconversations he was bringing to the forefront. These excuses empowered his growing radicalization. The echo chamber many political figures find themselves in is blinding to the reality that more extreme does not equal more correct. Thus, an unfortunateconsequenceoftheirvehement loyaltyandaffiliationwasthattherightwas pushed into further alienation. Had Republicans drawn a line once Ye began spewing increasingly fanatical ideas, the conservativemovementwouldhavegained morewidespreadrespect.

All blame for Ye’s partisan emancipation cannotbeplacedonconservatives;popular culture and left-leaning social media is largely responsible. Politics and entertainment have been coupled in a world where extremist behaviour gets views and likes. In order for social media companies to maintain their dominance over the dissemination of knowledge, they createalgorithmsthatbringattentiontothis cheap, and addictive, entertainment. Instagram and Twitter don’t care that Ye’s messages may be hurting people — he is making them more money by keeping his messages

followersloggedonandactive.

The figure that is Ye is capitalism at its finest:aproduct,madethroughsupplyand demand.Consumerswantdrama:theyget itinhismarriage.Consumerswanttoseea glamourizedversionofmentalillness:they get it in his Tweets. Consumers want a simplifiedexplanationforthecomplexissue thatisthecurrentpoliticaldivide:theygetit in his interviews. Consumers want entertainment: they get it in his downfall. We made Kanye West.And the cherry on topisthatwegetoffscot-freewhilehe—a humanbeing—suffersbeforeournumbed eyes. We are all onlookers in the colosseumwatchingYeforourenjoyment. We don’t care if he lives or dies. We only want blood, no matter the cost, and no mattertheloss.

Kanye West is not a celebrity nor even a real person. It is a figure created through our need to see our sins manifested in a singular, tangible individual; a vessel for our misdeeds and voyeuristic tendencies. We make our own monsters and then fear them for what they show us about ourselves.Whyarewesodesperatetosee extremism, to see hate, to see mental distress, and to see failure? Is it because these things are secretly within us all, qualities that can only be expressed and satiated when displaced onto the products we create? How have we allowed profit-drivencorporationstohavecomplete control over every aspect of our lives? These existential questions were only revealedintheprocessofthesufferingofa human being. Remember that next time you like a post, retweet, or share on your story and then complain about the consequences

consequences. Now that your bed is burning, what will you do to extinguish the fire?

Small Voices, BigActions or Extreme

Times, Extreme Measures?

by: Sylvia Kathirkamanathan

Social media’s intention to unite people isattimesskewedandresultsintheexact opposite.Thisphenomenonisexemplified by the demonstrations in the United Kingdom by Just Stop Oil. Just Stop Oil was inspired by the Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain, all three being widely knownenvironmentalactivistsandclimate change demonstration groups in the UK. They define themselves as “a coalition of groups working together to ensure the government commits to halting new fossil field licensing and production.” In recent months, protesters of the organization have taken controversial measures to spreadtheirmessages,suchasdisturbing theBritishGrandPrixandclosingtheM25 among other large-scale tactics and exhibitions. These public demonstrations were intended to be non-violent civil resistances to government fossil fuel usagebuthaveoftenescalated,leadingto about 2,000 arrests of supporters since April

April2022with5ofthoseindividualsgoing to prison. Despite these consequences, theorganizationpromisestocontinuewith these demonstrations until their demands aremetandevensuggeststhepotentialof going beyond the current modes of disruptions.

The major demonstration that escalated the exposure of Just Stop Oil from sit-downproteststoitsplatformtodaywas when Just Stop Oil activists Phoebe Plummer andAnna Holland threw tomato soup at Vincent van Gogh’s Sunflower painting at the National Gallery in London in October 2022. This incident took the media by storm. People were divided, somesayingtheyunderstoodtheintention of the act and others saying it was bothersome.

Just Stop Oil has gained a global audience

Extinction Rebellion protestors. Andrew Dykes

audience through social media and relies onthatcoveragetokeepitselftrending.By doing so, they are able to reach a wide audience who are attracted to their controversial tactics and express their reasoningfortheiractions.Thatbeingsaid, notallpublicityisgoodpublicity.Bystirring up conversations through antics such as these demonstrations, the focus of these arguments focuses on the severity of the demonstrations rather than the purpose of theacts.

Although they have good intentions, Just Stop Oil has alienated supporting forces through questionable actions and has divided its audience. The organization is reliant on grand actions that attract more widespreadmediacoveragethroughsocial media platforms and news channels, and thus the core message is drowned in the debates of their effectiveness and true goals. These goals include demanding the UK government immediately cease all future licensing and consents for the promotionoffossilfuelusage.JustStopOil wants to stop the UK government from approving 40 new North Sea oil and gas fields and instead pass the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill.The purpose of this bill is to create a new law to promote themostup-to-datescienceindiscussions and mitigations of climate change issues, asaresultkeepingthecountryaccountable for its part in combating climate change. This includes promoting initiatives such as ceasing and reversing the destruction of nature by 2030, climate and nature assemblies for emergency strategies and otherstrategieswithintheGovernmentand Parliament. The bill and its campaigners have garnered support from over 150 parliamentarians

parliamentarians from all major political partiesintheUK.

Public opinion over Just Stop Oil narrows down to two main groups of people; one that believes Just Stop Oil’s extreme actions are warranted given the extent of the climate crisis, and the other that believes these actions distract from the problem and are more of a nuisance than productive. Climate change group MP Watch expressed concerns over the demonstration tactics of Just Stop Oil, claiming their methods demonize environmental activism. MP Watch suggested a more moderate and dynamic routeinwhichpeoplemayengageasallies instead of participating in risky and controversial behaviour. Nonetheless, Just StopOilhasgarneredsupportfromgroups suchasGreenpeace,applaudingdisruptive actionasawaytomakepeoplelisten.Just Stop Oil considers the media coverage gained as confirmation of a winning strategy, whether that coverage is good or bad. Additionally, they consider the negative implications of their actions on people as a demand for action, overshadowingraisingawareness.

Garneringmediaattentionisadifficulttask for those promoting important topics to the public, especially with many social media outlets having ever-changing lists of trending topics that count on the impact of thetopiccarryingbigaudiences.Ifthetopic isnottrending,itwillsimplydisappearinto aholeofothercontenders.

Unfortunately, when promoting a cause, it is sometimes not enough to just have passion and ambition; an eye-catching action

action is necessary to spark a conversation. But a limit and boundary mustberespectedtoensurethemaingoal is not buried and overlooked. Many do not take climate change seriously, from governments to political parties to members of the public. Therefore, when climate change advocacy groups such as Just Stop Oil utilize dramatic tactics to promote their message, they end up providingnon-believerswithammunitionto fueltheirsuspicion.

Somemovementsrelyongrandertacticsto push a needed agenda and gather widespread media attention, but it is understanding how to balance gaining supportersandgettingtoocaughtupinthe publicity.Forexample,throwingsoupatthe Van Gogh painting gained great media attention, but the message Just Stop Oil was promoting was deeply buried in comments and articles on the controversy of the act and taunts. In a world where science does not seem to be enough to make people care about the issue, it is important not to fuel their agenda and do what is most effective for the cause, whetherthatberesilienttacticsasawayto setupaconversationwiththegovernment or putting a greater focus on public campaigningforthebill.

Just Stop Oil is campaigning for a muchneeded and important cause for the UK that has the potential to expand to other countries and promote real change regarding the issue. That being said, their approach to publicizing the cause through Civil Disobedience and Resilience could land them in trouble in the future. With so many eyes and cameras following their every

every move, it is crucial that they use that to their advantage and execute the most effectivewaytoreachtheirgoals.

The Fall Crisis: The United Kingdom’s

Issues and Turmoil

by: John Minyen

.

While the turmoil of the world continues tobuild,itisbecominghardertoignorethe changesweseehappeningbeforeourvery eyes. The tendency to ignore small changes has left us in an environment where we have issues that are cumulative and monstrous to approach. This extends to both economics and politics, especially inregardstothenewradicallyconservative approaches that have cropped up across the world. Much of the past two decades havebeencharacterizedbythesteadyrise of nationalism and grassroots movements and has drastically altered the course of boththedomesticeconomyandtheglobal economy. Much of the Western economy now stands at the precipice of truly historical moments, for better or for worse. Even as recently as November 2nd, there has been another interest rate hike by the United States Treasury to try and get inflation under control. Critical reserves of oil and gasoline are also being brought forth

UK flag on creased paper. Vectors Icon

forthtotryandoffsettheglobaldeficitthat OPEC has created with their 2 million barrel production reduction. These examples are only symptoms of the larger problem of increasing radicalism. To examine this issue in more depth, we can looktotheUnitedKingdom,andhowchaos within its own state is affecting the world. This will include examining the political turmoil both domestically and abroad, as wellastheeconomicimpactofthecurrent Britisheconomicplan.

Speaking to the United Kingdom’s domestic politics, they have entered into unprecedented turbulence. The Conservative party has lost all semblance of unity and has descended into tribalism, with some Tory MPs in open rebellion against the party leadership. The historic Prime Minister turnover and the rapid cabinet shake-ups are unprecedented in the

the British system and have produced a situation that has sent the UK and European markets into a meltdown beginning on September 23. Coupled with the supply chain issues still lingering as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a concern for the long-term health of the British economy. The political climate that fostered this crash is a result of a number of factors that can be tied into modern extremism and nationalism. Most of the political issues that are hampering the current market have arisen due to the fact that Liz Truss’s premiership was loaded withtheTrump-esquelegacyoftheequally Trump-esque Boris Johnson. The Brexit deal and Boris Johnson’s ascension to the premiership were both results of an extreme grassroots movement mimicking the American GOP tactics in the early 2000s.TheBrexitmovementisaparticular highlight of rising populist sentiment. The measure was passed by British voters by only a small margin and was only brought to pass by an extremely vocal part of the British Conservative movement. However, asaresultofthismovement,theyarenow bound by law to find an exit out of the EuropeanUnion,whichinturnhascaused acollapseoffaithintheBritisheconomyin thelongterm.

This extremism has been brought on by voters who no longer feel the benefits of globalization and free trade. The Depression of 2008 sent the world reeling andinBritain,hadtheunfortunatetimingof coincidingwithanimmigrationwave.Given this timing, it was easy for anti-immigrant political movements to make the newcomersscapegoatsfortheturmoiland pain felt by the everyday Briton. A very neutral

neutral economy recovering from the collapsedidnothelpmatterseither,asthe cultural and economic consequences of being a member of the European Union were amplified tenfold in the emerging markets.Morevotersfeltmarginalized,and thus more extremist views gained traction. This suggests that the economic and politicalissuesintheUnitedKingdomarea result of a very vocal and very populist minority within the Tory party. With Brexit onthehorizon,theincreasingpossibilityof Scottish Independence, and a market with very little faith in the current political party, there seems to be little hope for a unified Britain.Itisundertheseconditionsinwhich domestic and global markets reflect increasingpoliticalextremism.

As a result of the economic collapse and theinnerturmoilofhercabinetturnover,Liz Truss chose to resign and has left Rishi SunakasthePrimeMinistertopickupthe Conservative mantle. This has brought some stability and confidence to the European markets, but the shocks are guaranteed to be felt throughout the world in the coming months. Socially speaking, parts of the UK have been in an uproar over the continuous disarray, especially Scotland. Scottish independence from the UK has become a focal point of the Scottish parliament, and every day it is becoming more likely that Scotland is on the path to secession. The extremism that has become resurgent across the globe hasshakenthestabilityofmarketsandhas possibly caused a death blow to the unity oftheUnitedKingdom.

Polarization Like Never Before: Increasing

Polarization Between the Democratic and Republican Parties in the United States

by: Sydney Robinson

Partisan polarization in the United States notonlydeepensdivisionswithinAmerican societybutalsoincitesgrowingpolarization inothernation-states.

The Plurality system in the United States, involving the Republican and Democratic parties, has seen increasing partisan polarization within the past few decades. This polarization has led the state to become extremely divided on topics ranging from economics to racism. While therehasalwaysbeenpartisanpolarization between the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States, citizens have never experienced it to this extent. Beginning in the Obama administration, partisan polarization has been increasing been

within the US. President Barack Obama wasthefirstAfricanAmericanmaleeverto be elected president of the United States. While this was celebrated by many, other individuals had their concerns, specifically regarding his birth certificate. Many could argue that these questions were racially based,andtonosurprise,duringObama’s administration, partisan polarization was at its highest in over 60 years. In 2011, a surveywentoutconductingresponsesfrom Republicans and Democrats, regarding Obama’s performance as President. Approximately 80% of Democrats were content with Obama’s action as president, whereas only 12% of Republicans were content; an overall 68-point difference between the two. Although the global recession

Anti-Trump protest in Washington, November 2016. Ted Eytan

recessionoccurredduringObama’stenure, causing him difficulties both politically and economically, polarization peaked during his presidency and has continued into the Trump administration and through to the presentday.

Unfortunately,polarizationdidnotdecrease whenTrumpenteredintooffice,ifanything he fueled greater division by using hate and discrimination to fuel his campaign. Trump played on racial stereotypes during his campaign, essentially fueling fear and hatredoftheperceived'other'inaneffortto gainsupport.

Trump referred to Mexican immigrants as “rapists” while also saying that they bring crime and illegal drugs to the US. In addition, Trump proposed a ban on all Muslim people from entering the US. Overall, Trump has made hundreds of racist, xenophobic, sexist, and other remarks during his campaign and his time in office. Trump’s campaign managed to create hatred from both sides of the political spectrum. On the one hand, left-leaning Democrats were furious with the comments being made, and the racial divide that Trump was opening back up in theUnitedStates.Right-wingRepublicans, on the other hand, used racialized fear to maskeconomicfear.Asaresult,faultsand flaws in the United States have been blamed on minority groups, with Trump supporting this claim. This increased partisan polarization in the United States hascontinuedtogrowintothepresentday. We see partisan polarization especially growing between the alt-right and the Democrats. With the rise of conspiracy theories and the presence of QAnon, both Democrats

sides have spread misinformation and hatred. The Republican and Democratic parties are drifting to ideological extremes, widening the gap between the right and left.

Asahegemonicactorinworldpolitics,the UShassignificantinfluenceovertherestof the world socially, economically, and politically.AspotlightisputontheUSand its affairs, and the world follows them intensely for their own interests. With increasing partisan polarization in the United States, there has also been increasing polarization in other nation-states. Countries such as Canada, the U.K., and Italy are experiencing growing polarization. In Canada, this is visible with the recent emergence of the People’s Party of Canada basing its platform on healthcare cuts, eliminating funding for multiculturalism programs, limiting immigration, and pushing for the rightofunbridledfreespeech.Whilenotto the same extent as in the United States, Canada has seen increasing partisan polarization between the emergence of left-leaning and right-wing parties. The increasing polarization and ideological divide in Canada, especially with the PPC, is causing Canadians to feel negatively toward other parties. Moreover, growing polarization in Canadian politics seems to suggest Canada is following a similar trajectoryastheUnitedStates.

Although polarization is a natural thing between political parties, extreme partisan polarization is dangerous to society, citizens,anddemocracy.Theuseofhatred to fuel political campaigns, fake news, focusing on issues other than policy issues,,

issues, and pushing for radical changes within the government that aren't democratic as a result of polarization is what is tearing the United States and the restoftheworldapart.Thisposesadirect threattodemocracyanditsconstituents,as politics are becoming a game of who can play it dirtier and who can generate the most supporters through hate, not through whocouldbestrepresentcitizensandtheir needs.

Partisan polarization is a normal thing. Without differences between parties, there would be no political debate in terms of who is holding office. However, partisan polarization to this level is not normal, nor should it be normalized. Growing partisan polarization has negative effects on all aspects of society. It limits parties' abilities to find a middle ground on agreements, fuelscitizenswithhatredoftheotherparty, increases polarization within other countries, and lastly, it threatens democracy. Partisan polarization must returntoitspriorlevels,allowingforparties to work together for the well-being and desires of their citizens in a healthy democracy.

Women Waging Peace: The Role of

Women’s Groups in Resisting Polarization

and Extremism

.

by: Meghan Hembruff

In times of political contention and deepening divides, the loudest voices are those representing the most extreme views. However, though it appears our worldisbecomingmoredivided,itisvitalto recognize the role of grassroots organizations in counteracting polarization with solidarity. The recent election of Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel adds to the growing trend of right-wing politics around the world. For a country experiencing one of the most enduring conflicts of the present day, the rise of right-wing leaders like Netanyahu dampens hope of any resolution in the short-term. However, despite deeply contentious political relations, united Palestinian and Israeli women's groups have joined together underacommoncausetoresistpolarizing forces.

The rise of right-wing leaders around the world

world indeed suggests that persistent political polarization is part of a pattern of deepening ideological divide among the general public. While to some extent, the election of Netanyahu represents growing right-wing sentiments among voters, it would be too hasty to conclude that this shift in extremism is universally applicable to all members of society. In Israel/Palestine today, and elsewhere throughout history, growing extremism is confrontedbyeffortstoresistsuchdividing forces. Those members of the public striving towards peace organize themselves and stand in opposition to extremisminuniqueandsurprisingways.

NorthernIrelandinthe1960stothe1990s was characterized by violent religious conflict. Extremism prevailed, and hatred for the other side continued to drive divisions

A mother comforts her child. Montecruz Foto

divisions between Catholic and Protestant neighbours. Despite deep polarization, Catholic and Protestant women worked together to form the Belfast Women's Support Network. Collaboration between women from either side was based on shared goals of peace and ending poverty and violence. In these spaces, women put aside politicised differences and recognizedcommonalitiesinordertobreak down societal divisions. Women's groups aroundtheworldhaveplayedanimportant role in establishing solidarity in times of contention, and Israel/Palestine is no exception.

Dating back to 1993, Israeli women and Palestinian women have met to discuss opportunities for peace and advocated for equality and an end to violence for the Palestinian minority in Israel. This initial organizationwasknownastheBatShalom (Daughter of Peace). Like the Belfast Women's Support Network, women from opposing sides were able to work together in a shared project for peace despite increasing political tension between their nations.

More recently two women's groups, an Israeli group called Women Wage Peace and a Palestinian group called Women of the Sun, have joined together to resist rising extremism. Women on both sides argue that the current violence poses a serious threat to their children's future. They have been able to unite under a sharedgoaloffosteringpeacenegotiations and have urged the Israeli government to formulate a "bilaterally acceptable political agreement" to end the conflict. In early 2020, members of the two organizations met

met via Zoom and released a joint statement under the name "Four Million Mothers" - referring to the number of mothers living in Israeli and Palestinian territories. Their declaration, known as the Mothers Call states: "We, Palestinian and Israeli women from all walks of life, are united in the human desire for a future of peace, freedom, equality, rights and security for our children and the next generations.”

Throughout worsening tensions and increasing military action in the Gaza Strip this summer, the two groups continued to meetregularlyandsharetheirexperiences withoneanother.Indoingso,womenfrom either side recognized that the prolonged fightingwasnotservinganyone,butrather resulted in numerous tragedies on both sides of the divide. In the fall of 2022, the Women Wage Peace Movement and the Women of the Sun Movement jointly embarked on a 'Month of Peace' in which the two organizations travelled throughout Israel/Palestine raising awareness for their campaign. The joint Mothers Call MovementhascalleduponbothIsraeliand Palestinian leadership to begin peace negotiations and provide a solution that recognizestherightsofallindividualsliving inIsrael/Palestine.So,whiletheelectionof a right-wing party in Israel dampens hope for a resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the persistence of women's grassroots organizations like the Mothers CallMovementservesashopefulproofthat noteveryonerevertstoextremismintimes of contention. It is true that perhaps the general perception given by politicians or themediacreatestheimageofapurely'us versus them' type situation. These messages

messages frame the two sides as vastly differentfromoneanother,somuchsothat conflict is seen as inevitable or necessary. Despite this deeply divisive rhetoric, some people have resisted polarization and established a sense of common ground between groups. Moreover, while political polarization persists, the beliefs and dreams of individuals from opposing sides are not as different as they may seem. In Israel/Palestine and elsewhere, grassroots organizations fighting for peace should servenotonlyasexamplesthatsolidarityis possiblebutfurther,needtobeunderstood aspowerfulsocialforceswiththecapability of resisting polarization. Efforts by these groups demonstrate that in times when politicians and extremists are dividing us from one another and compelling us to think only of what makes us different, we can choose instead to resist these divisive forces and appreciate instead the ways in whichwearealike.