Attack on Donald Trump | Taking care of each other

Almost a year ago, The Press launched a section in which every day of the week, since then, we have been promoting exchange, listening, dialogue.

This section was born from an observation: in an increasingly polarized world, the need to find a place where we can discuss without risking receiving a volley of green wood was vital.

For my first column in this new section, I spoke with the philosopher Daniel Weinstock, professor of ethics at McGill University.^⁠1.

“In a democracy where we find many different points of view,” he told me, “there will not necessarily be consensus, but we will find compromises. Compromise really presupposes listening. And that allows us to build bridges that are sometimes unexpected.”

Building bridges is also what Robert Putnam advocates. If you don’t know this American political scientist, I invite you to discover his work, in particular the book that made him famous: Bowling Alone: ​​The Collapse and Revival of American Community. By an absolutely incredible coincidence, the New York Times Magazine is publishing a lengthy interview with Mr. Putnam in its Sunday issue, available online since Friday, hours before a 20-year-old man attempted to assassinate former U.S. President Donald Trump.

The attack not only sent shockwaves, but also rekindled calls for an end to extreme polarization.

But how can we ensure that these appeals do not remain just wishful thinking?

There are several possible solutions to be found in Robert Putnam’s words.

For a quarter of a century, the Harvard University professor has been warning us against social isolation. Against the disastrous consequences of what he calls the “collapse of the American community.”

The 1960s, he says, were the golden age of community and togetherness in the United States. And he has the data to prove it. Among them, an inverted U-shaped graph that clearly illustrates that social isolation is not a new phenomenon. It was observed in the early 20th century.^e century, at a time when, like today, opinions were polarized. And when people lived rather isolated from each other.

Gradually, a sense of community developed in the United States, reaching its peak in the 1960s, a time when social inequalities were fading and civic movements were flourishing. From there, however, we slowly returned to the situation of the 1900s and 1910s.

Which leads Putnam to say: “So today we have a country that is very politically polarized, just like it was 125 years ago.”

Isolation is bad for your health

Last year, I went to England to report on how the country had implemented a series of measures to counter social isolation, which is now considered a real public health problem in several Western countries.^⁠2.

The British government has, among other things, created a Ministry of Loneliness which promotes policies that promote connections between people.

The first to push for this was Labour MP Jo Cox, who was, ironically, murdered in 2016 by a man the media described as “sympathetic to far-right ideology”.

As Robert Putnam aptly put it, “Isolation is bad for your health, but it’s also bad for the health of the people around you.”

Several studies have in fact shown to what extent social isolation, in addition to damaging the social fabric, has a negative impact on people’s physical and psychological health as well as on their life expectancy.

If there is one group in society that Putnam is particularly concerned about, it is young men. They are particularly at risk of committing violent acts and adhering to white nationalism, he says.

If we want to solve the problems of polarization in society, the political scientist believes, we must deal with them.

Not much is known yet about the perpetrator of the attack on Donald Trump, a 20-year-old man who is believed to have acted alone, but it seems that Robert Putnam’s words are prophetic.

Interestingly, in the early 1900s, young men were also idle and unruly and a threat to social peace, Putnam explains. That’s when Boy Scouts and other social clubs were created to keep them occupied and instill values ​​like sharing, community spirit, social commitment, etc.

Robert Putnam does not propose bringing the Boy Scouts back into fashion, but he strongly suggests finding new ways to engage young men in activities that are both fun and values-forming.

This is a path that deserves reflection.

Just as we need to think about ways to live better together.

I don’t know about you, but in the aftermath of the attack on Donald Trump, I spent the day thinking about the tone of our exchanges on social media. About the gap that is growing between small groups who defend their ideas with a kind of rage. About the behavior of our politicians who don’t always set the best example.

As Putnam says, it’s easy to get along with people who are like us and who think like us. But we also have to have the courage to build bridges with people who are different: younger, older, from different backgrounds… In short, with people who don’t have the same perspective on life as us.

And it starts, Robert Putnam insists, with taking better care of each other.

Totally agree. And you?

1. Read the column “There are 8.485 million of us, we have to talk!”

2. Read the report “Breaking solitude… like the English”

What do you think? Join the dialogue