Leaders Exploit Crises, Undermining Democracy for Political Gain

The Minneapolis-Gaza parallel reveals a dangerous pattern: leaders exploiting crises for political gain, imperiling democratic unity and delaying vital reforms. This conversation with Thomas L. Friedman exposes how the "worst of the worst" in both the US and Israel leverage division, not problem-solving, to maintain power. Those who can grasp these hidden dynamics--understanding how immediate political wins translate into long-term societal decay--gain a crucial advantage in navigating a landscape where genuine progress is sacrificed for partisan expediency. This analysis is essential for anyone seeking to understand the forces undermining democratic institutions and for those who wish to champion solutions that prioritize lasting stability over short-term political victories.

The War of the Worst: Exploiting Crises for Political Gain

The events in Minneapolis, where federal agents engaged with residents and protesters, drew a stark comparison from Thomas L. Friedman to the dynamics of the Gaza War. His analysis, rooted in his experience covering both regions, highlights a shared, insidious strategy: the exploitation of conflict for political power. Friedman identifies this not as a solution-seeking endeavor, but as a deliberate tactic to deepen societal divisions and consolidate a narrow base of support.

Friedman frames this phenomenon as the "War of the Worst," where extremist elements within each community--Hamas in Gaza, and figures like Stephen Miller and Donald Trump in the US--drive the conflict. Their objective, he argues, is not to resolve underlying issues but to weaponize them for political gain. This is particularly evident in the context of upcoming elections. For Benjamin Netanyahu, prolonging the Gaza conflict ensures Hamas’s continued influence, thus positioning Netanyahu as a strong leader against a persistent threat, rather than a figure who failed to achieve lasting peace. Similarly, Donald Trump’s approach to immigration, Friedman contends, was designed to be a divisive issue rather than a problem to be solved, allowing him to rally a specific segment of the electorate by stoking fears about border security.

"They weren't trying to solve a problem; they were trying to basically use a problem, to exploit a problem, to drive a wedge between us, which pretty much applies to all the actors in the Gaza War as well."

This strategy creates a dangerous feedback loop. By prioritizing political advantage over genuine problem-solving, leaders like Trump and Netanyahu undermine the very institutions and consensus needed for democratic societies to function. Friedman points to the 2026 elections as a critical juncture. He warns that a Republican sweep, granting them control of all branches of government without the immediate pressure of a presidential re-election campaign, could lead to unchecked actions. Likewise, he fears for Israel’s future if its current government, pursuing an annexationist agenda, solidifies its power. The consequence of this "winning by division" is the imperiling of democratic unity, a theme echoed in Friedman’s personal connection to Minneapolis, his hometown, which he sees as being "assaulted by the federal government."

The Uncomfortable Truth About Immigration and Assimilation

Friedman’s perspective on immigration offers a nuanced view that challenges conventional political divides. He advocates for a "very, very high wall on the border with a very, very big gate"--a seemingly contradictory stance that underscores his core argument: controlled borders are essential for maintaining public consensus on immigration. He believes the Democratic Party made a significant error in the last election by not emphasizing border control more forcefully, which he sees as a factor in Trump’s re-election.

"I am not for open borders. I'm for radically pro-immigration, and the only way I'm going to be satisfied with my aspiration is if Americans feel the border is controlled."

The downstream effect of failing to address this perceived lack of control, Friedman explains, is that communities can feel destabilized, leading to a loss of cultural norms and a sense of displacement. This creates fertile ground for leaders like Trump, who can then frame immigration not as an opportunity but as a threat, a "wall against the gale forces of change." Friedman illustrates this with the example of Willmar, Minnesota, a town that has transformed from 99% white to 40% immigrant in a few decades. He highlights the success of this integration, noting that for the younger generation, diversity is simply normal. However, he acknowledges the "wrenching transition" for some, particularly those experiencing simultaneous destabilization in their sense of home, cultural norms, and work. This highlights a critical failure point: the inability of political discourse to acknowledge and navigate this transition constructively, instead allowing it to be exploited.

The Competitive Advantage of Embracing Change

Friedman’s analysis of American exceptionalism and its global role is deeply intertwined with his views on immigration and societal change. He argues that America’s greatest competitive advantage has always been its ability to attract and embrace global talent. This is not merely about open borders, but about creating a welcoming framework for those who contribute to the nation’s dynamism. He laments that leaders like Stephen Miller and Donald Trump, who have not lived abroad, fail to grasp this fundamental strength.

The current challenges, including the events in Minneapolis and the broader political climate, are seen as a threat to this core American asset. Friedman identifies two major concerns: the erosion of institutions and the exacerbation of societal divisions by technology and political rhetoric. He points to the appointment of unqualified individuals to key institutions under Trump, arguing that this weakens the very foundations that make America unique and attractive.

"God distributed brains equally around the world. What he didn't distribute equally is countries that would openly embrace those brains, and that's been America's single greatest competitive advantage."

Furthermore, he critiques the role of social media platforms like Facebook, which profit from outrage and division, and Donald Trump, who made such behavior politically profitable. The combination, he suggests, has taken the "pot" of societal tension and "taken the lid off." The consequence for those who can see this is the potential for a significant advantage. By understanding that genuine progress requires not just solving immediate problems but also managing societal transitions and strengthening institutions, individuals and organizations can build resilience and long-term success. This requires a willingness to engage with difficult issues, such as immigration and cultural change, with a focus on integration and institutional strength, rather than succumbing to divisive rhetoric. The delayed payoff of this approach--a stable, unified, and dynamic society--is precisely what is being sacrificed by those who prioritize short-term political wins.

Key Action Items

• Immediate Actions (Next 1-3 Months):

  • Advocate for comprehensive immigration reform: Support policies that combine strong border control with clear pathways to legal status and citizenship.
  • Support community integration initiatives: Invest time and resources in local programs that foster cross-cultural understanding and support for new immigrants.
  • Critically evaluate media consumption: Actively seek out diverse news sources and be mindful of how narratives can be used to exploit societal divisions.
  • Reinforce institutional integrity: Support organizations and leaders dedicated to upholding democratic norms and strengthening public institutions.

• Longer-Term Investments (6-24 Months):

  • Champion balanced political discourse: Encourage and participate in conversations that seek common ground and de-escalate polarization, even when uncomfortable.
  • Invest in civic education: Support educational programs that teach the importance of democratic institutions, critical thinking, and civic engagement.
  • Build bridges across divides: Actively engage with individuals and groups holding different perspectives to foster mutual understanding and identify shared goals.
  • Develop resilience to division: Cultivate personal and organizational strategies to resist divisive rhetoric and focus on constructive problem-solving, understanding that this creates a durable advantage.