9 Comments
User's avatar
Hans Boserup, Dr.jur. 🇩🇰's avatar

You’re pointing at something real — but I’d frame it slightly differently.

It’s rarely “one man” who turns a country against itself.

What happens instead is that one figure exposes and accelerates divisions that were already there.

The U.S. didn’t suddenly become polarized.

It had:

long-standing institutional mistrust

media fragmentation

economic divergence between regions and classes

and a political culture increasingly built on identity rather than compromise

A strong political figure doesn’t create that from scratch —

but he can weaponize it, simplify it, and make it visible.

That’s the key shift.

What used to be underlying tension becomes daily political reality.

And once that happens, the system starts feeding itself:

outrage drives attention

attention drives media incentives

media incentives deepen division

So the question isn’t really who caused it —

but why the system was so ready for it.

That’s the more uncomfortable — and more important — answer.

Fred Ferguson (GeezerWise)'s avatar

Agreed... the system was ready.

But readiness isn’t ignition.

Plenty of places have the same underlying tensions.

Not all of them end up torching relationships with their closest allies.

That takes a spark... and someone willing to keep it burning.

Ron Murphy's avatar

It really doesn't matter what the narrative or question is, you will always get around 20% of the population to accept or reject it.. The world is flat, there will be a zombie apocalypse, zombies exist, aliens walk amongst us, vaccines are necessary, you should use a seat belt while driving, etc.... pose this as fact, an sure enough 20% will agree or disagree.

With an education level of basically grade 5 for roughly 54% of Americans, I'm surprised that the percentage is just 20%.

Fred Ferguson (GeezerWise)'s avatar

There’s definitely a “baseline 20%” effect... I’ve seen that too.

But I think the bigger issue isn’t that the 20% exists… it’s when that group gets targeted, organized, and amplified.

That’s when it stops being background noise and starts shaping how people see reality... including how they see other countries.

I’d be careful tying it strictly to education levels though.

This kind of shift cuts across all kinds of people.

It’s less about how smart someone is… and more about repetition, identity, and who they trust.

That’s where the real leverage is.

Ron Murphy's avatar

Repeat a lie often enough and, well you know.

pabu46's avatar

Tricky one. The UK is a bit of a misnomer, it does not have a united attitude, or united political leaning, three of the four nations are quite largely at odds with Westminster and the burgeoning privately funded business ‘Reform’ party headed by a ‘trump wannabe’

We are hoping we are regarded Internationally as countries

pabu46's avatar

You are going to be right,very sadly, but no worse than the Americans swept along against their will.

Fred Ferguson (GeezerWise)'s avatar

Fair point... and you’re not wrong.

“UK” gets lumped together in polling, but on the ground it’s anything but unified.

Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland… very different political moods from Westminster.

The problem is, that nuance doesn’t travel well.

From the outside, people don’t see four distinct perspectives... they see one label.

And once that label gets tied to a narrative, it sticks.

So even if the reality is fragmented… the perception isn’t.

And right now, perception is doing most of the damage.