1. Home
2. Lebanon
3. The Great Realignment: Navigating the Chaos of Modern Politics

Politics in the 21^st century feels like a pendulum that has lost its rhythm. The ideological battle between the left and right has become less about substance and more about spectacle, leaving liberals—once the pragmatic bridge between these two camps—searching for relevance. The world has entered an era where media-savvy personalities dominate the discourse, eclipsing policy-driven leaders.

As the United States and Europe grapple with this phenomenon, parallels emerge with Lebanon’s political struggles, where personalities like Joseph Aoun and Nawaf Salam embody the old and new approaches to governance.

Historically, politics oscillated between left-wing ideals of equality and social justice and right-wing emphasis on tradition, nationalism and free markets. The 20^th century provided clear examples of these divisions: Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs of the 1930s were a direct response to economic inequality, while Margaret Thatcher’s conservatism in the 1980s championed deregulation and individual responsibility.

Liberals traditionally occupied the middle ground, balancing the excesses of both extremes. In the United States, the Clinton era in the 1990s epitomized this pragmatic centrism, embracing free-market economics while expanding social programs. Similarly, European centrists like Emmanuel Macron have attempted to steer a course between the far-right populists and the far-left radicals. However, in today’s polarized landscape, centrism is dismissed as weak, ineffective or even complicit.

The media’s transformation has amplified this polarization. Platforms like Fox News on the right and MSNBC on the left thrive on creating echo chambers. Social media algorithms further deepen divides, rewarding outrage over nuance. This dynamic leaves little room for liberal pragmatists to thrive.

Nowhere is this shift more evident than in the United States, where Donald Trump redefined what it means to be a politician. A real estate mogul and reality TV star, Trump leveraged his celebrity status to bypass traditional gatekeepers, turning politics into entertainment. His rallies resembled rock concerts more than policy forums, complete with merchandise and catchphrases.

Trump’s ascendancy set a precedent, proving that charisma and media savvy could outweigh qualifications or policy expertise. In the UK, figures like Andrew Tate—known more for his controversial online persona than any substantive political agenda—are following a similar playbook. By weaponizing social media, Tate garnered attention as a “thought leader” despite offering little in terms of actionable governance. Tate built a brand that thrives on polarizing opinions. He recently announced the launch of a political movement called BRUV—an acronym for “Brothers Rising Under Virtue.” The party aims to disrupt traditional politics by appealing to disenfranchised young men through a mix of populist rhetoric, hyper-masculine ideals and anti-establishment sentiments. Tate declared his intention to become the UK’s Prime Minister and launched the BRUV party to support this goal.

This trend reflects a broader shift in global politics. Voters increasingly prioritize personality over policy, often mistaking charisma for competence. The result is a political landscape dominated by figures who are more adept at creating viral moments than solving complex problems.

The rise of spectacle politics has exposed the dangers of ideological extremes and the limitations of personality-driven leadership. Pragmatism—once seen as unexciting—may be the antidote the world desperately needs.

Take Angela Merkel, for example. As Germany’s chancellor for 16 years, Merkel’s leadership style was methodical, data-driven and unglamorous. Yet, her pragmatism allowed her to navigate crises ranging from the Eurozone debt crisis to the refugee influx of 2015. Similarly, in the post-Cold War era, pragmatic leaders like Nelson Mandela and John Major demonstrated the power of compromise in achieving lasting change.

Pragmatism does not mean abandoning principles, it means prioritizing solutions over slogans. It requires leaders who are willing to engage with opposing viewpoints and adapt their policies based on evidence, rather than ideology.

This brings us to Lebanon, a country whose political gridlock epitomizes the global struggle between ideological posturing and practical governance. The current debate between Joseph Aoun and Nawaf Salam offers a microcosm of these tensions.

Aoun, a military general, represents stability and tradition in a country desperate for security. Salam, on the other hand, is a former diplomat and judge known for his leftist ideals and advocacy for social justice. While Salam’s vision aligns with the aspirations of Lebanon’s younger, progressive generation, Aoun’s pragmatism appeals to a populace fatigued by years of economic collapse and political paralysis.

The challenge for Lebanon—and indeed for the world—is finding a way to bridge these two approaches. Can a leader emerge who embodies the pragmatism of Aoun while channeling Salam’s ideals? This balance is crucial, especially in a country where political sectarianism has often prioritized identity over governance.

The current political landscape demands a reevaluation of what leadership means. As the lines between politics and entertainment blur, the world risks prioritizing style over substance, leaving critical issues unresolved. Whether in the United States, the UK or Lebanon, the solution lies in rejecting extremes and embracing pragmatic leadership.

Leaders like Merkel, Mandela and Major have shown that compromise and competence are not weaknesses but strengths. For Lebanon, this could mean a coalition between figures like Aoun and Salam, combining security with social progress. Globally, it requires citizens to demand more from their leaders than viral soundbites or social media clout.

In a world increasingly driven by spectacle, pragmatism may be the boldest choice of all. As Thomas Friedman once wrote, “The best way to predict the future is to create it.” The time has come for leaders—and voters—to create a future built not on division, but on common ground.