Subscribe
One might wonder whether the internet and social media have influenced political rhetoric. Has political discussion as it is conducted on X, Facebook and Instagram led us to believe that political battles are won by running over one’s opponents?
When Donald Trump, and some other politicians, believe that they have everything to gain by humiliating their opponents, one can sense that they are putting their faith in a logic that works on social media but that absolutely does not work in real politics.
Because how do you win on X or Facebook? Most often by motivating your own supporters to press the like button and to explain to the world in your own messages how right you are. The fact that your opponents dislike what you wrote does not matter much. After all, it was them you wanted to humiliate. It was them you wanted to make fun of. It was the others who would lose.
But how does that tactic work in real politics in a democratic system where politicians need the support of a majority of people to be able to extend their mandate? Not so well.
The problem is that the politician who goes too far, who appears insensitive and indifferent to other people’s reactions, will arouse sympathy with those he wants to fight.
President Trump believes that the United States needs Greenland for its own security and for the security of the entire Western world. Russia’s and China’s ambitions at the North Pole must be stopped, and only the United States can do that. It is so important to him that he is threatening to take Greenland by force and thus invade a territory belonging to a small but faithful ally, Denmark.
What happens, of course, is that the entire Western world reacts with astonishment and disgust. People don’t believe it’s true. Is the US going to seize territory from a friendly NATO country at gunpoint? What is Donald Trump really thinking? Can we trust Trump’s USA? And do we really want to have that much to do with this USA?
But the negative reactions are also coming from the president’s home turf. The Americans did not support Trump when he demanded to take over Denmark. American civilian and military diplomats tried to keep their faces covered but were probably embarrassed when they met their European colleagues who wondered a little wide-eyed whether they were dealing with a friend or an enemy.
And of course (and fortunately) Trump then announced that he was backing down from the demand. He could take Greenland, he declared to Western leaders in Davos, but he will not do it.
So, what did the US gain from the threat against Denmark? Nothing of course. Especially not Trump. Instead, he has now destroyed much of the trust he has built up with conservatives in Europe. Who wants to express their support for an American president who threatens a European ally?
So, what does this have to do with the sometimes quite brutal political debate on social media? Well, it shows that in the real world we do not always have much to gain from being brutal and uncompromising. A few of our own supporters may dutifully applaud, but many others will instead feel sympathy for those we run over.
We can see something similar in the tragic shootings that Trump’s immigration police ICE has unfortunately been involved in.
Many people around the world understand that Americans are tired of illegal immigration. They understand that Trump received a mandate from American voters to end this migration and to try to deport a significant portion of the people who are in the country illegally. But when people start being shot dead on what some may perceive as weak grounds, sympathy for Trump’s policies risks being eroded. The tough measures become counterproductive.
In other words, politics is also the art of governing without arousing unnecessary resistance. On social media, we can all enjoy crushing our opponents. It doesn’t work that way. Not in any democracy.
And finally: If there is anyone who should understand all this, it is conservative politicians. Conservatism is based on an understanding of the complexity of existence and the necessity of trade-offs and compromises. This also applies to political rhetoric.