Today, it seems like we are living in an ever-polarised world, with the rise of more right-leaning or nationalist political parties. Even those who make it to power tend to hold a thin majority of the votes, leaving the typically half of the population that did not vote for them feeling disillusioned and frustrated. Do movements, such as MAGA, have a winning formula, or does it reflect more of a disconnect between the political system and modern society?
DISCLAIMER
All published articles are intended for an audience aged 18 years and over and have been written by members of the general public. Many will likely not be journalists nor be affiliated with any professional bodies associated with members of the media. The articles will likely be based on the authors' own opinions, views, and experiences...more
I have loved politics from a young age and find the debates going on today really interesting. Like many people, I followed the US elections closely, paying close attention to the stance and position of the key political candidates. One thing I quickly learnt was that today it seems like political parties are less about who is best to govern and more about an idea, as well as their star power, with many followers having more cult-like behaviours and characteristics on both sides of the political spectrum.
Take the UK as an example; the three major parties in the country are the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, and the Liberal Democrats. The Labour Party was more left-leaning, with some socialist principles and traditionally represented the working class. The Conservative party were more right, with capitalist principles representing professionals, business owners and the middle and upper classes. The liberal democrats are in the centre, slightly more left-leaning and more for progressives, reformers and those outside of the two major parties.
People treated their allegiances to these parties as part of their identity and something core to their principles. Today, during elections, if you asked a typical person who they might vote for and why, they would likely indicate their long-standing support for their party with some outdated reasoning, like because I am working class, often unable to highlight more than one policy or soundbite, let alone explain the policies of the party and how it might affect them.
I say this not as a criticism but more as an example of the disconnect between the people and the political system. The truth is these parties and political systems have changed, moved with the times and with public opinion, good and bad, and many ordinary people still have an idealism of what they think they represent rather than what they are.
Today, in the US and even the UK, you can place many people on a sliding scale from left to right. As an example, which applies to many countries, the split is usually something like 35% more left, 35% more right and 30% in the centre. Those in the centre will likely be people who are considered undecided or those who do not align with a specific party or one that is regarded as smaller than the major parties. In elections, most political parties work hard to sway that centre group as they are what are typically needed to win an election. Those voters will normally decide on the platforms or manifestos the political parties are running on, which usually come down to one or two important and often emotive subjects. On all things, even those stated in their manifestos, loyalist supporters can be found saying “they would never do that” or “that is more the other party” when presented with facts that contradict the view or opinion of their party.
So, understanding the dynamics of political movements, such as MAGA, does that mean they have a winning formula?
Take the UK as an example; the three major parties in the country are the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, and the Liberal Democrats. The Labour Party was more left-leaning, with some socialist principles and traditionally represented the working class. The Conservative party were more right, with capitalist principles representing professionals, business owners and the middle and upper classes. The liberal democrats are in the centre, slightly more left-leaning and more for progressives, reformers and those outside of the two major parties.
People treated their allegiances to these parties as part of their identity and something core to their principles. Today, during elections, if you asked a typical person who they might vote for and why, they would likely indicate their long-standing support for their party with some outdated reasoning, like because I am working class, often unable to highlight more than one policy or soundbite, let alone explain the policies of the party and how it might affect them.
I say this not as a criticism but more as an example of the disconnect between the people and the political system. The truth is these parties and political systems have changed, moved with the times and with public opinion, good and bad, and many ordinary people still have an idealism of what they think they represent rather than what they are.
Today, in the US and even the UK, you can place many people on a sliding scale from left to right. As an example, which applies to many countries, the split is usually something like 35% more left, 35% more right and 30% in the centre. Those in the centre will likely be people who are considered undecided or those who do not align with a specific party or one that is regarded as smaller than the major parties. In elections, most political parties work hard to sway that centre group as they are what are typically needed to win an election. Those voters will normally decide on the platforms or manifestos the political parties are running on, which usually come down to one or two important and often emotive subjects. On all things, even those stated in their manifestos, loyalist supporters can be found saying “they would never do that” or “that is more the other party” when presented with facts that contradict the view or opinion of their party.
So, understanding the dynamics of political movements, such as MAGA, does that mean they have a winning formula?
It is easy to condemn all those people who identify with or are affiliated with a political party or movement that you do not agree with. In reality, looking past the parties and the chants, serious issues are going on in society that are affecting the lives of real people.
Leading up to the US election, I watched a number of YouTube documentaries centred around the Appalachia region in the USA. In many of the towns the documentarians passed through, it was clear to see the deprivation, signs of people struggling, addiction and the overall lack of opportunities. One thing that surprised me was the political views many of the people interviewed held. Some stated that they planned to vote for Trump and Vance, not because they liked their politics or the movements, even the politicians themselves, but more because of their stance on protecting the mining industry.
One of the major industries and employers in the area relates to coal mining, which is where many people’s incomes are dependent, whether directly or indirectly. Trump and Vance not only stated that they would allow coal mining to continue but also that they wanted to increase production.
In contrast, the Democratic Party was standing firm in its environmental policies regarding change and reducing carbon emissions. Though important to global climate change, for people in the area, that was a barrier to voting for Harris and Walls as it would see the biggest employer in the area disappear with no alternatives, all of which represented a risk to their way of life.
Okay, this is just one example, and many other similar issues may have contributed to the outcome of the election; however, today, there seem to be clear lines all dividing society. Some political behaviours and tactics are contributing to even fuelling this, all of which need to be addressed in the modern world.
Misinformation, false narratives, media outlets publishing stories as facts based on hearsay without reliable or confirmed sources and politicians twisting and exaggerating the truth all need to be held accountable. The words of many of these groups hold real weight and are confusing people, giving false impressions and fuelling conspiracy theories. Many of these false narratives are even becoming platforms on which political parties are running and rallying the crowds. It is not about silencing; instead, it is about changing the rulebook to reflect the information warfare going on in society today, including the importance of social media and the impact it has on public opinion.
All of these factors are making the gap between opposing views larger, with policies which represent a significant threat to democracy and the freedoms people have fought hard to obtain over the past 200 years. The division serves a purpose: it allows more extreme views to thrive and historically less popular parties to rise to power. Throughout history, societies in turmoil, especially those that are divided, have been easier to conquer and control.
Over 2,500 years ago, Sun Tzu, who was a leading military strategist in China and whose teachings form part of the popular book The Art of War, emphasised the importance of psychological tactics over brute force and stated, “If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.”
If you watch the media today, you will see groups on each side of the argument arguing, mocking and condemning the other, all as the laws and their rights are changing around them.
Leading up to the US election, I watched a number of YouTube documentaries centred around the Appalachia region in the USA. In many of the towns the documentarians passed through, it was clear to see the deprivation, signs of people struggling, addiction and the overall lack of opportunities. One thing that surprised me was the political views many of the people interviewed held. Some stated that they planned to vote for Trump and Vance, not because they liked their politics or the movements, even the politicians themselves, but more because of their stance on protecting the mining industry.
One of the major industries and employers in the area relates to coal mining, which is where many people’s incomes are dependent, whether directly or indirectly. Trump and Vance not only stated that they would allow coal mining to continue but also that they wanted to increase production.
In contrast, the Democratic Party was standing firm in its environmental policies regarding change and reducing carbon emissions. Though important to global climate change, for people in the area, that was a barrier to voting for Harris and Walls as it would see the biggest employer in the area disappear with no alternatives, all of which represented a risk to their way of life.
Okay, this is just one example, and many other similar issues may have contributed to the outcome of the election; however, today, there seem to be clear lines all dividing society. Some political behaviours and tactics are contributing to even fuelling this, all of which need to be addressed in the modern world.
Misinformation, false narratives, media outlets publishing stories as facts based on hearsay without reliable or confirmed sources and politicians twisting and exaggerating the truth all need to be held accountable. The words of many of these groups hold real weight and are confusing people, giving false impressions and fuelling conspiracy theories. Many of these false narratives are even becoming platforms on which political parties are running and rallying the crowds. It is not about silencing; instead, it is about changing the rulebook to reflect the information warfare going on in society today, including the importance of social media and the impact it has on public opinion.
All of these factors are making the gap between opposing views larger, with policies which represent a significant threat to democracy and the freedoms people have fought hard to obtain over the past 200 years. The division serves a purpose: it allows more extreme views to thrive and historically less popular parties to rise to power. Throughout history, societies in turmoil, especially those that are divided, have been easier to conquer and control.
Over 2,500 years ago, Sun Tzu, who was a leading military strategist in China and whose teachings form part of the popular book The Art of War, emphasised the importance of psychological tactics over brute force and stated, “If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.”
If you watch the media today, you will see groups on each side of the argument arguing, mocking and condemning the other, all as the laws and their rights are changing around them.
In the UK, recently, the Supreme Court ruled that legally, a person’s gender or sex can only be determined by their sex at birth. The ruling means that a transgender person who undergoes surgical procedures to change their sex will not have their gender recognised within the law. Progressive laws have been set back 20 years, and it also works to marginalise the transgender community further. These developments are the effects of long campaigns against the transgender community, which, from a timing perspective, provides convenient cover for many, including the government.
Rising costs, world uncertainty, polarised society, lack of opportunities, and many more important issues are now being talked about a little less, while complex gender issues, the needless wars and the sad death of the Pope dominate the headlines. In calmer times with less going on, just one of these issues would likely cause outrage and hold those in power to account.
When you have an outdated political system, you likely have parties that do not reflect or understand what is really going on or the impact it is having on people’s lives. Giving the option at election time of not great, bad or really bad isn’t really an option; it’s more of a choice of who will cause the least amount of damage to society.
For ordinary Americans, say, Republicans who are not MAGA, what are their options? A democratic party trying to find its place after its defeat, or a president who is making promises that, if delivered, would improve their lives. With that choice, many will likely, sometimes, reluctantly go with the president, even though the current situation does not look great for those prospects. For many, the question of what the alternative is goes unanswered.
For years, countries have meddled in the affairs of other sovereign nations, often using the carrot and the stick approach. It is not just the government but also companies, conglomerates, industries and even faiths. Many of the countries suffering from corruption and extreme poverty are easier to manipulate. For example, imagine you are a faith-based organisation that wants to enforce family values. Paying one or more politicians could see the introduction of anti-LGBTQIA+ legislation in that country.
A recent surprising development reported in the media related to the UK-USA trade deal, according to the Advocated, on April 17, 2025, it was reported that an anonymous White House Adviser allegedly stated that the Vice President, JD Vance and the Trump administration were planning to impose a condition within the trade deal that would require the UK to roll back and repeal its laws regarding hate speech against the LGBTQIA+ community in order to secure a trade deal with the US.
Think about that for a moment; if the report is correct, in order to secure a trade deal effectively to buy and sell goods and services between the UK and the USA, the UK would need to change its laws and allow the LGBTQIA+ community to be targeted with hate speech. This move could further polarise society in the UK, creating a bigger space between the groups that have grown since Brexit.
Regardless of your beliefs or politics, it is always important to understand who is pulling the strings and why.
Rising costs, world uncertainty, polarised society, lack of opportunities, and many more important issues are now being talked about a little less, while complex gender issues, the needless wars and the sad death of the Pope dominate the headlines. In calmer times with less going on, just one of these issues would likely cause outrage and hold those in power to account.
When you have an outdated political system, you likely have parties that do not reflect or understand what is really going on or the impact it is having on people’s lives. Giving the option at election time of not great, bad or really bad isn’t really an option; it’s more of a choice of who will cause the least amount of damage to society.
For ordinary Americans, say, Republicans who are not MAGA, what are their options? A democratic party trying to find its place after its defeat, or a president who is making promises that, if delivered, would improve their lives. With that choice, many will likely, sometimes, reluctantly go with the president, even though the current situation does not look great for those prospects. For many, the question of what the alternative is goes unanswered.
For years, countries have meddled in the affairs of other sovereign nations, often using the carrot and the stick approach. It is not just the government but also companies, conglomerates, industries and even faiths. Many of the countries suffering from corruption and extreme poverty are easier to manipulate. For example, imagine you are a faith-based organisation that wants to enforce family values. Paying one or more politicians could see the introduction of anti-LGBTQIA+ legislation in that country.
A recent surprising development reported in the media related to the UK-USA trade deal, according to the Advocated, on April 17, 2025, it was reported that an anonymous White House Adviser allegedly stated that the Vice President, JD Vance and the Trump administration were planning to impose a condition within the trade deal that would require the UK to roll back and repeal its laws regarding hate speech against the LGBTQIA+ community in order to secure a trade deal with the US.
Think about that for a moment; if the report is correct, in order to secure a trade deal effectively to buy and sell goods and services between the UK and the USA, the UK would need to change its laws and allow the LGBTQIA+ community to be targeted with hate speech. This move could further polarise society in the UK, creating a bigger space between the groups that have grown since Brexit.
Regardless of your beliefs or politics, it is always important to understand who is pulling the strings and why.
Political parties are waking up to the fact that information and those controlling the narrative, especially across the generations, are key. It is clear, by looking at the world today, that journalism has changed, and so have the organisations that call themselves media outlets. Today, we have social media influencers who sometimes show more journalistic integrity than some of those who work for well-known and traditional media outlets.
Redefining who can call themselves a news outlet would mean that those creating fake news or pushing false narratives could continue to do so, but would not be allowed to label or call themselves a news outlet, instead, a source of entertainment. Which ultimately would have an impact on the way people view those organisations and reporters.
Professional bodies and associations that govern the standards relating to journalism could create a new category, the basics, that people could study and pass exams in weeks rather than years that cover key areas and standards. A new category could mean those who spend years studying and working as journalists would be distinguished from those who do so because of their content.
Upon completing these courses, even with a continuous development requirement, online social media influencers and personalities could continue carrying out investigative journalism with insight into good governance and special press credentials to give them greater access. For professional journalists, a minimum standard should be set in which not pushing false narratives or misinformation could see their press credentials pulled, and they are no longer allowed to say they are journalists, but rather that they studied journalism.
In a bid to create transparency leading up to an election, a simple crib sheet could be produced with key issues and topics. Each political party could score itself on each of the themes, with descriptions of the plan to tackle, the funds, and the measures they will put in place. The key would be to keep it simple and show the voting public what they are really voting for, rather than what they think they know. It would not have to be on all manifesto points, just the key ones and each leader of the party would be required to approve their submission. Failure to deliver on some or all of these pledges could see the calling of an election after two years.
Politicians who knowingly cause harm, misinform, and commit crimes, especially where their crimes are affecting millions of lives, should be held accountable. They have any immunity stripped away or the prospect of a pardon for specific crimes, as well as being removed from their role and not allowed to run again, not by their party but by the people.
Redefining who can call themselves a news outlet would mean that those creating fake news or pushing false narratives could continue to do so, but would not be allowed to label or call themselves a news outlet, instead, a source of entertainment. Which ultimately would have an impact on the way people view those organisations and reporters.
Professional bodies and associations that govern the standards relating to journalism could create a new category, the basics, that people could study and pass exams in weeks rather than years that cover key areas and standards. A new category could mean those who spend years studying and working as journalists would be distinguished from those who do so because of their content.
Upon completing these courses, even with a continuous development requirement, online social media influencers and personalities could continue carrying out investigative journalism with insight into good governance and special press credentials to give them greater access. For professional journalists, a minimum standard should be set in which not pushing false narratives or misinformation could see their press credentials pulled, and they are no longer allowed to say they are journalists, but rather that they studied journalism.
In a bid to create transparency leading up to an election, a simple crib sheet could be produced with key issues and topics. Each political party could score itself on each of the themes, with descriptions of the plan to tackle, the funds, and the measures they will put in place. The key would be to keep it simple and show the voting public what they are really voting for, rather than what they think they know. It would not have to be on all manifesto points, just the key ones and each leader of the party would be required to approve their submission. Failure to deliver on some or all of these pledges could see the calling of an election after two years.
Politicians who knowingly cause harm, misinform, and commit crimes, especially where their crimes are affecting millions of lives, should be held accountable. They have any immunity stripped away or the prospect of a pardon for specific crimes, as well as being removed from their role and not allowed to run again, not by their party but by the people.
I believe that I am patriotic, as well as a globalist, and I know there are many people there who are, too, when it comes to their country. Whether you love or care about your country and its people, then it should always be country over party that your vote is not earned or automatic because you have always voted a certain way, or you come from families that are long supporters of a party. It should be the best candidates, not the party. When you think in that way, you look at all of the candidates objectively and choose the one that best reflects what the country needs right at that moment.
In life, for every problem, there are solutions, but infighting and remaining divided will never fix what is going on around us now. We have to accept that everyone has different views and opinions, and rather than arguing about who is wrong or who is right, sometimes complex subjects can start with simple questions and build from them. Questions like “Should the constitution change?” or “Do you feel you are fairly represented?”
Complex subjects would need to be explored and discussed further, but it starts with a principle and builds from there. How many times have you heard the phrase The people have given me the mandate? It is true that by voting for a party, you are giving them a mandate to lead, but on key areas and subjects, why not be clear, providing a clear parameter within which any politician is allowed to work?
Some of these parties have hidden agendas; the truth is they come to power based on real people’s problems and fears that are not always addressed or resolved. Until you acknowledge and address those fears and issues, it is more likely that history will keep repeating itself.
There is always hope, but all the time, we remain divided and do not set our expectations; movements like MAGA will always have the winning formula.
In life, for every problem, there are solutions, but infighting and remaining divided will never fix what is going on around us now. We have to accept that everyone has different views and opinions, and rather than arguing about who is wrong or who is right, sometimes complex subjects can start with simple questions and build from them. Questions like “Should the constitution change?” or “Do you feel you are fairly represented?”
Complex subjects would need to be explored and discussed further, but it starts with a principle and builds from there. How many times have you heard the phrase The people have given me the mandate? It is true that by voting for a party, you are giving them a mandate to lead, but on key areas and subjects, why not be clear, providing a clear parameter within which any politician is allowed to work?
Some of these parties have hidden agendas; the truth is they come to power based on real people’s problems and fears that are not always addressed or resolved. Until you acknowledge and address those fears and issues, it is more likely that history will keep repeating itself.
There is always hope, but all the time, we remain divided and do not set our expectations; movements like MAGA will always have the winning formula.
Learn more about how individual countries and regions around the world treat members of the LGBTQIA+ community. From the status and laws of same-sex marriages to gender identity recognition, this easy-to-use equality index provides a score and breakdown for every country worldwide.
Learn more about the exceptional LGBTQIA+ community, discover the community’s history, the ongoing movement for equality, the size of the community and how much it contributes to the world economy, frequently asked questions and much more.
Acceptance and coming to terms with a part of what makes you can be challenging for many people. The Gayther pride in series is about celebrating all things relating to sexualities, gender identities and special groups. Showcasing the exceptional people, interesting facts and ways to connect with those unique communities
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: All published articles have been written by members of the general public. Many will likely not be journalists nor be affiliated with any professional bodies associated with members of the media. The articles will likely be based on the authors’ own opinions, views, and experiences. Gayther does not endorse or accept any responsibility or liability regarding any materials within the news and media pages. This page may contain external links to third party websites; Gayther provides these links for your convenience and does not endorse, warrant or recommend any particular products or services. By clicking on any external links, you will leave Gayther and be taken to the third-party website, which you do so at your own risk and by accessing the site, you will be required to comply with the external third party’s terms and conditions of use and privacy policies
Discover all of the topical articles written by people from across the community and friends, all sharing their stories, opinions and experiences
