DICHOTOMY

I was having a conversation with a friend where he made it abundantly clear to me that he does not subscribe to the politics of another friend of mine, and frankly, was surprised that I got along so well with that person because it must mean that, in some ways, I agreed with their political beliefs.

To be very illustrative about this, it’s actually the idea that I am friends with someone who supports Trump, Putin, and possibly every other controversial political leader out there. There is a presupposition that these people are violent, hateful, racist and all sorts of other words that are probably filling up your mind as you read this.

Of course, this led to a discussion on my political stance, which focuses on apathy more often than not. Almost in the sense that I do not feel that strongly about any political party or philosophy, not because there is no value, it is just that in my value scale, it is not part of my identity. Some people identify themselves by their politics; for me, it is a more intrinsic tag of a value system. In the end, politics is about advancing selfish interests for the greater good. Every political party, no matter how altruistic, is merely trying to effect the change they think is necessary, regardless of whether or not that is true and if that is the only change possible.

I discovered that a very good friend of mine had supported Trump just a few days before the US elections, and for the first time, I felt a genuine disappointment that I didn’t know how to channel. I was first shocked, then confused, like how? I decided to ask why. He made very logical arguments that centred on economic advancement, the fact that Trump is likely to deliver, given his outspoken nature, and the argument that all Politicians are liars, so you may as well just find the one who is going to do as he says. Not to mention the fact that Trump survived bankruptcy twice, and he is still one of the world’s richest men. This is a very simplistic breakdown of the discussion we had, but you get the gist.

After I listened, I realised that it made sense he’d think this way, considering his personality. As a person, he subscribes to male dominance, masculinity and entrepreneurial instincts and is largely a person who prefers reliability and consistency. In the end, I understood it wasn’t necessarily about morality or perception of bias or discrimination, but a reflection of what he intrinsically thought power should represent based on his viewpoint. In some ways, that is what I mean by politics being selfish, even with all the altruistic intents.

Having the conversation did not necessarily ease my perplexity; what helped was zooming out of that conversation and asking myself if I was ready to lose a friend based on a person I didn’t know and the politics of a country that I do not reside in, barring the global impact. Further, I asked myself if this friend has shown up for me where it matters, if I can call them racist, sexist, discriminatory, bad, or vile? When I posed these questions, it was easier to accept that a difference in opinion does not affect the quality of the relationship we have or the knowledge I have of this person as my friend. Also, I am not friends with this person just based on perfect morality. There are some things he says that I do not subscribe to and make sure I come for him, but it doesn’t change the loyalty to the friendship or the connecting points.

I raised this argument to this friend that I started the conversation with, and he had a dissenting opinion in that he says, it is like saying it is okay to be friends with a rapist or a killer and to be honest, I thought that was a fair argument. I have no rejoinder for that.

I know another person who supports Trump simply because he is a staunch nationalist. He believes in maintaining the integrity of a place and its people. So yeah, this person is sort of anti-immigration. Specifically, immigrants who do not want to assimilate into the culture of the environment they settle in and want to impose their culture in a new environment that does not belong to them. I cannot say I understand this completely. Being an immigrant myself, of course, I am pro immigration and believe the world should be a free place for all to decide what culture they want to adopt. Add the fact that I come from a country that was colonised, and I sort of think immigration is a necessary evil. I see all the potential pitfalls, but that is not enough to dissuade me from the originality of the intention.

On the other hand, I have a friend who says I am too apathetic and that points to the fact that I am a Christian and believe I am not a part of this world, so it doesn’t matter if this world falls apart. This friend want me to be more woke, to be more activist in my political stand, to be politically correct, and sometimes it feels that there is already a polarity of what right politics should be, and every other opinion is inhumane. I find that ironic because I see that as some form of coercion, too. Don’t get me wrong, people dying in the name of war and economic greed will always be inhumane, that’s my politics. I don’t have to know all the political history and sensitivity to be able to make that opinion.

At this point, what I want to say is that we all seem to say that we are different, but when that diffeence start to show in the way we think or interact with the world, we feign surprise. Is that not the point of a difference in the first place? It seems like we are all conditioned to accept differences only so long as they are familiar.

Politics is a very sensitive topic, and it goes hand in hand with religious beliefs and values. It is therefore understandable that people feel threatened when their political opinion or beliefs are seen as incorrect or not sufficient. In my opinion, I see it as flawed people setting a standard for goodness without accepting that they are also capable of evil. Conscience is malleable and subjective, and that is what terrifies me about humanity or what we subscribe to as humane. I am even more terrified when a person poses as an absolute morality god of goodness and advances that course as the only political way. There is something totalitarian about politics that even when it is benevolent, it is coercive.

I think it is important to live in a world where differences are navigated. No one is perfectly absolute. There is no absolutely vile human. I hate that I have to make this argument, but it is what it is. The worst criminal is the kindest person in another narrative. It is usually a battle of self-will and interest, depending on which side of the divide you fall. No one who is consistently willing will voluntarily see it as a privilege, nor will they be motivated to give up their vantage position. On the other hand, when one is consistently on the losing end, it is easier to pinpoint the oppression. If the position becomes reversed, the tune will change.

Summarily, the world needs more tolerance, more ability to accept opposing ideas with equanimity, more acceptance that differences will challenge us, that’s the point, but largely that we are all equally capable of good and evil in the same breath.

Xoxo,

Dcconnoisseur.