Is outrage culture and the media fuelling nationalism 2.0?

It is no secret that far right, nationalist platforms and parties have experienced an explosive growth in popularity in the past few years. Moreover, there are several notable examples in which they have won the elections over their more liberal, left leaning counterparts. Prominent examples include the Philippines’ Duterte, the United States’ Donald Trump, and as of a few days ago, Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro. It should be clear by this point that this phenomenon is not endemic to the U.S.A. or Europe or any other part of the world for that matter.

So, what could the underlying cause for this behaviour be?

Many of the countries in which the far right prevailed were either economies that were stagnated or in a recession. This shouldn’t come as a surprise: authoritarian sentiment and regimes were on the rise across the world nearly a century ago as well in the 1920s and 1930s, when much of the world was going through a major recession. Widespread corruption and high levels of criminal activity are also conduits that usher voters towards the more patriotic, nationalist right wing ideologies and parties which are often self-described as anti-establishment.

I also believe that the way news media choose to cover politics and political discourse, combined with “outrage culture” have contributed to this phenomenon. Having right and left leaning publications is by no means a new thing, but the level of polarisation and manufactured outrage present nowadays on both sides is unpresidented. An increasing amount of users on social media, spurred on by the media outlets of their choice, demonise anyone holding views significantly different from their own.

“You disagree with me, therefore you must be a fascist misogynistic nazi.” Or: “You disagree with my views, therefore you are a hippie millennial snowflake sjw feminazi.” I am exaggerating of course, but not by as much as I would have hoped. And with the increasing levels of polarisation, the middle continues to shrink as people flock to the extremes. How does this facilitate discussion, understanding, and compromise — all of which are vital components of a functioning democracy? There needs to be actual discussion, but the current political climate can be summarised as two people who have plugged their ears and are screaming on top of their lungs “Lalalala, I can’t hear you.”

Reddit user jpjandrade had the following to say in a thread discussing the result of the Brazilian presidential election:

“My take as a Brazilian: this is one more chapter in the unraveling of democracy we’re witnessing around the globe, fuelled by social media and extreme polarisation. It has its own peculiarities, like with all countries, but it is following the footsteps we’ve seen in the US with Trump, in the Philippines with Duterte and in Europe generally (Le Pen, Wilders, AfD and the schizophrenic populist left / populist right parliament in Italy).

“Democracy, consensus building and “cooler heads prevailing” is unraveling. No one knows exactly what’s the answer to it. Today’s election in my country is one more chapter in this history.”

I have an idea of what an answer might be. Unfortunately, it is not particularly appealing to most people, myself included. For a democratic system to function, discussion and compromise are not simply desired or preferred; they are vital. And currently, discussion is not happening. Most people refuse to acknowledge or discuss views that do not align with their own, choosing instead to isolate themselves in echo-chambers where the only opinions voiced are those they agree with.

We are better than this.

We have to be better than this.