Polarisation is often described as ideological. But its deeper cause may be moral – a loss of the capacity to recognise goodness in those who disagree with us, and the consequences that follow.

On 22 January 2026, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Donald Trump questioned the value of NATO: “We give so much, and we get so little in return.” His remarks framed long-standing alliances as bad deals, treating postwar Western solidarity as elite theatre.

What mattered was not only the provocation, but the reaction. For critics, it confirmed nihilism. For supporters, it signalled honesty at last. In neither case was there much willingness to recognise good faith on the other side.

Trump is not the cause of our current polarisation, but one of its symptoms. The postwar liberal West built a powerful secular moral framework grounded in law, rights, and institutions. These achievements were real and hard won. Yet over time, moral legitimacy became identified with adherence to its norms, while dissent was increasingly treated not as disagreement, but as deviance.

As the public role of religion receded, the moral vocabulary that once tempered judgement also thinned. Western culture became highly skilled at identifying violations, but less capable of interpreting motives, absorbing contradiction, or recognising moral complexity in those outside its approved categories.

A society that cannot imagine goodness in its opponents will inevitably begin to treat them as threats to be managed rather than fellow citizens to be persuaded.

Victor Hugo gave this posture a human face long before it shaped modern politics. At the centre of _Les Misérables_ stands Jean Valjean, a former convict transformed through an act of mercy, who spends the rest of his life trying to honour it. Set against him is Inspector Javert, a police officer devoted to law. Javert is not corrupt or sadistic. He does not pursue Valjean out........

© Pearls and Irritations