Social Media and Political Mudslinging

I felt compelled to write this piece, simply because I’ve noticed for a long enough time now that political discourse has been spiraling toward an ever-increasingly shift toward infantile, hostile, regressive ad hominem tactics and overstated reverence of political figures and cults of personality, as opposed to civilized, rational discourse, all thanks in part to the relative anonymity afforded to the opinionated by social media.  Indeed, socio-political tribalism has taken precedence over adherence to facts and an objective definition of the truth.  What was traditionally known as truth is now being defined as whatever satiates our confirmation biases best, rather than something that conforms with objective analyses of reality.  Politicians are often lauded based on their star power, and less so on their achievements.  And even when they are lauded based on what they have achieved during their tenure, their failures, not matter how significant they may be are quickly swept under the rug, simply because the mere mention of them serves to tarnish the collective narcissism that permeates among charismatic leaders and their supporters.

Such issues have been none more profound than in the political climate of the last four or five years.  Indeed, the last several years have seen an international dichotomy of the left and the right between political messianic figures Jacinda Ardern and Donald Trump.  Both figures have been as equally polarizing as they have been endearing and charismatic, and the subsequent personality cults that have surrounded them have in turn quickly determined the political narratives that likewise make up contemporary political discourses, both at the international level and national levels respectively.  Supporters on both sides have been rabid in their defense of their chosen political fetishes, responding to criticism with anger and even outright hostile outbursts.  Blinded by charisma and the naïve belief that their idols are infallible and thus the only ones capable of instigating desired change, supporters reject rationality and objectivity and look at criticisms of their leaders or parties as being opportunistic beat-ups, either refusing to acknowledge, or being outright aware of, the fact that 1) All politicians are fallible, make mistakes and support policies we don’t always agree with; 2) that popular informal fallacy of the ad hominem fallacy, best summarized by the television character Mr Spock with the words “labels don’t make arguments”; and 3) Narcissism is a well-established trait in politics, which is something we as voters all need to be wary of.

However, this “star-power” endearment unique to the aforementioned political poster-kids is rarely justified, if indeed ever.  Neither is a savior-type figure in any way, shape or form that their adoring sycophants make them out to be.  Catchphrases such as “be kind” and “drain the swamp” have ultimately proven to be equally vacuous, hollow statements meant to gall the most fervent followers into a deluded frenzy of false hope and broken promises.  Yes, both sides can be accused of not upholding their end of the bargain with regards to what they promised their voters at election time.  That being said, some degree of praise is certainly warranted on either side of the political abyss - Ardern should be given due credit for her (relatively) competent management of the Covid pandemic and indeed other significant events, such as the Christchurch Mosque Shooting, and Trump likewise credibility for not getting America implicated in any serious international fracas (indeed, his tenure as POTUS did see America’s predilection for getting involved in foreign wars diminish somewhat), him insisting that America should perhaps be more self-reliant, and he did rightfully take a tougher stance on China.

And in spite of all the positive appraisal, there are also demonstrable (and extensive) failures that will continue to sully the legacies of both Ardern and Trump.  The woefully disastrous Kiwibuild program that promised 100,000 new houses built by 2028 resulted in a mere 1,058 houses built as of May 2021, has been a monumental stain on the Ardern government’s legacy, compounded further by the exponential growth in house prices throughout the year 2021 to the present day.  Likewise, the recommendations made by the Welfare Advisory Group have been minimally implemented, with child poverty still a significant issue, exacerbated further by skyrocketing rents.  And in America, Trump’s most cardinal sin had less to do with policy failure than outright dishonesty and the aggressive dissemination of misleading claims that the Democrats had rigged the election, including numerous failed court appeals, many of which were presided over by conservative Republican judges (including some appointed by Trump himself).  Of the 63 legal challenges made, Trump and his team failed to overturn all but one (which was then itself overturned by the court).  In contrast to Ardern, the Trump administration’s handling of the Covid crisis was catastrophically bad, resulting in one of the highest death rates per capita in any developed country.  Indeed, it is almost certain that had Trump managed the crisis competently, rather than give in to the obtuse and misinformed, anti-vax, anti-mask and anti-science constituents who felt personal liberty was far more important than personal safety, he would have won another term in the oval office.

Whilst traversing the numerous comment threads on social media pertaining to articles about both Ardern and Trump, there is not one concession on either side regarding the achievements of the other.  There is disinformation and misinformation being disseminated by both sides of the political axis, and the disdain and hatred for the other was made clear by the weaponizing of feelings as opposed to cold, hard facts.  Discourses quickly boiled down to logically fallacious attacks, such as insults, contextually irrelevant statements, misleading claims and even death threats.  Psychologically, comments are often devoid of empathy, self-absorbed and self-righteous in their tone and makeup.  The spectrum of views, with its plethora of stances ranging from mild and extreme (i.e., far left, center-left, centrist, center-right and far right) has been replaced with a more black and white dichotomy of communist or fascist groupings – to someone who supports Ardern, Trump supporters are all fascists – surprising news to those who either themselves or their families endured the totalitarianism of Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco.  To someone who supports Trump, Ardern supporters are all rabid communists with a new world order agenda – again, surprising news to anyone who’s family endured the hardships of Stalin’s disastrous agricultural collectivization reforms, Mao Zedong ’s Great Leap Forward or the Killing Fields of the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot.  Whilst it is true, for instance, that many Trump supporters may harbor racist, misogynist, or otherwise ultra-conservative views, there is, of course, a significant base of people who felt that Trump simply ‘got things done’, referring to his purported legacy of being the ‘anti-politician’ that didn’t get the job for the perks and achieved everything he promised to achieve.  Some of these people, like many a voter throughout the long and illustrious history of democracy, would go on to feel ‘let down’ by Trump and subsequently vote for Biden or some other candidate.  The same may be true vice versa.  Others of course, particularly members of his more ‘alt-right’ fanbase continued to defend him regardless of what he did, arguing he was still a better option than the ‘socialist’ Democrats.  Likewise, for Ardern, she may not have courted the votes of extremists like hard-line communists to the same degree that Trump attracted white supremacists, but nonetheless she too attracted a sizable portion of hard-line adherents who would argue for her ‘compassionate’ stance and vigorously defend any criticism levied toward her and respond with insults and personal attacks, irrespective of whether said criticism was warranted or not.  And like Trump, some of her voters in the last election will, of course, be disgruntled by why they see as her failings and choose to vote National, Green or for some other minor party.  In any case, voter disillusion is simply an irrefutable reality of partisan politics.  It always has been.  And it always will.  To think otherwise is at the height of foolishness.

And whilst social media networks should certainly be made to hold some degree of responsibility for allowing the dissemination of discursive phenomena such as misinformation, disinformation, the proliferation of flame wars and outright trolling, the relative anonymity that comes with the near anarchistic nature of social media account creation enables loose-lipped discourses for which social media participants can and should be held to greater account.  Social media users need to maintain civility and refrain from engaging in passion-driven vitriol, acknowledge the confirmation biases of both oneself and those of others and attempt to refrain from engaging in hostilities and the ensuing flame-wars that do nothing but rile people up beyond necessity.  It is neither logical nor relevant to bring up matters such as Ardern’s supposed ‘horse’ teeth or Trump’s alleged "golden shower" encounter with Russian prostitutes, and it simply fills comment threads with meaningless junk and helps to dissuade otherwise indifferent social media participants from engaging with a medium that has demonstrable benefits, such as the ability to connect with friends, family and like-minded individuals around the world.  There are ultimately no winners in flame wars that escalate into hate speech and death threats, just as there are ultimately no winners in a war that threatens to go nuclear.  In concluding this piece, I am reminded of an expression that summarizes all this quite succinctly – “you’ll catch more flies with honey than vinegar.”