Today, the USA appears permanently politically polarized. From reactions to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, to attitudes towards Woke-ism or Donald Trump, views seem irreconcilable. When we focus only on our own point of view rather than a larger picture, we disregard the consequences that may have in the world. From family dinners to congressional debates, the country is split, and common ground, even one to disagree in, is increasingly hard to find.  It is no longer “my country, right or wrong” but “my opinion, right or wrong”.

William Ophuls, the author of Immoderate Greatness – Why Civilizations Fall, suggests that when societies become successful, they disconnect from what really matters, and deteriorate. In a process of systemic overshoot, the right only desires to be more right, and the left, further left. Furthermore, frivolity, including of the intellectual variety, overtakes all, and small matters become large and dramatic, even ones to kill for. Of course, the effect of social media in this regard also cannot be ignored. America has shifted from a society that tries to solve problems to one that argues about them.

This result in one big heave away from the real world, its nuance and calm, into stratospheric abstractions fought out electronically and physically. We live more and more in our heads where opinion reigns. However, such a disconnect from reality can be dangerous. Without the world’s corrective trials and tribulations, matters will unravel because we will apply the wrong solutions.

We all have certain views on how matters should be politically, which is almost never the way they are. This claim can be useful to propel us forward but when the gap between what we wish for, and what is, feels intolerable, we can become heated, and viciously attack an opposite side.

An opinion is a view about something, not necessarily based on facts or knowledge - yet we hold on to it precisely because it is ours. This is a sense of virtue and righteousness that is difficult to let go of. Who does not want to feel like a crusader pursuing an ultimate good? However, all issues are full of nuance and contradiction.

Let us look at the living example of Donald Trump. The man is clearly an arch-narcissist, often ignorant about issues yet full of certainties. He has tendencies towards authoritarianism disguised as the exercise of executive authority. His behaviour around other authoritarian leaders betrays him. He is simultaneously respectful and obsequious around them, rather than dismissive or casual, as he is around democratic leaders. In many ways, he is not made to be President of the USA in the complexities of the 21st century.

However, simultaneously, Trump is a bold, clear and honest actor. One day he whirls in demagogic rants and the other, he cuts through crap like a hot knife through butter. When he said that neither Israel nor Iran knew ‘what the f’ they were doing’ during  their war, he spoke a truth. When he insists that the UN is not doing its job in resolving conflicts across the world, he is right. His boldness and, ironically, his narcissism led him to achieve what his predecessor could not: end the war in Gaza. Timing and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s blunders have helped but Trump also has the character to pull it off. Yet, most of his haters are loathe to admit that the man speaks some truths because that is the nature of loathing. It is very difficult to get beyond opinion; once set, we hold on to it hermetically.

Admittedly, the work of getting beyond opinion, and looking at any subject from many angles is a confusing and painful process. Bringing a more positive Trump into your head may be an unpleasant exercise. It is easier to keep a well-shaped and embedded view in our minds, untouched and untainted. But, by making this effort we become better informed about reality, and, inadvertently or not, our view becomes contained and softened by larger context, forged by forces other than the linear beam of personal certainty that is the hallmark of today’s political discourse. Differences will not dissipate, the competition of views will not disappear, that is the very nature of life, but extreme polarization may diminish.

Donald Trump is both good and bad for America, and we will each have a different judgment about that mix. He is culling excessive and useless government spending while in some cases throwing the baby out with the bathwater. He is forcing allies to take responsibility for their defence while creating an almost permanent distrust in America as a partner. He is trying to make America again a centre for manufacturing while breaking trade ties across the world.

There is a term to help us through all this: the coincidence of opposites. From nature’s night and day, or winter and summer, to political left and right and Trump’s contradictions, opposites come about and exist together; indeed, they need each other. America was once good at addressing this reality – it is no longer. This does not mean an embrace of the other, tension will forever define opposites alongside a lack of understanding. They are coming at the world from a different direction. But this does not mean the need to exterminate the other side. Indeed, the right’s attempt to deny the left or vice versa will only fold back on itself - that is how connected opposites are. Whether through increased extremism and violence, or by a refuge in thoughts so extreme that they are worthless in the world, the denial of the coincidence between opposites results in destruction. Like him or hate him, understanding Trump with all his contradictions can only help.

Political systems have tried to attend to this fundamental and inevitable opposition of views in many ways. Parliamentary democracies create debate permitting the loyal opposition to make its case – and permitting the public to hear it out. Authoritarian systems prefer a top down annihilation of duality through the power of one, whether one man or one party. In many ways, this is what American poltics has become, a series of opposing authoritarianisms, top down simplistic ideological abstractions forced down onto a living complex world. Many point to Donald Trump’s behaviour as one such example but the left’s unquestioned pursuit of many of its agendas such as Diversity, Equity and Inclusion or climate change policy is also troublesome, it brooks no opposition, for it guards itself as already right.

For much of its history, the USA had a common ground that held differences together. Other than during the civil war, the idea of America, vague as that might be, alongside representative government and checks and balances, held the country together. People differed deeply but they played out their contentions in one common field. Today, each side wants the other off the field.

A further deterioration into blind and rival tribes will represent a breakdown of the entity we know as the USA. The accelerating denial of a fundamental aspect of reality that, indeed, opposites will and should exist together, imperfect and imperfectly, never quite fulfilling themselves, is a testament to the impending fall of a culture.

Despite its imperfections and grand errors, the American political experiment is one of  the greatest in history. It is a system of productivity and creativity, of infusing the new into set ways, the likes of which the world has never seen. However, today, the red and blue compact is at risk because many citizens prefer their monochromatic opinions to the complexities of reality, and the fulness of their imperfect country.

***

John Bell is the Director of The Conciliators Guild, an organisation dedicated to reframing politics through a deeper understanding of psychology and human needs.

***

THE COINCIDENCE OF OPPOSITES

WINSTON CHURCHILL AND NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN

The Montréal Review, February 2025

History casts Churchill as the defiant hero and Chamberlain as the weak appeaser, but were they actually two sides of the same coin? This article challenges our black-and-white view, exploring how these "coincident opposites" were both necessary for history to unfold. Discover the surprising argument that Chamberlain's failure was the essential preface to Churchill's ultimate victory.