Photo Credit: “Debate 10.4.12” by Southern Arkansas University
This story was originally published in the GenZeal feature of LNP on Sunday, April 19, 2026.
By Brayden Napolitan ‘26
“I came to see if words are still an effective method of communication,” Japanese writer and political activist Yukio Mishima said during a famous political debate at the University of Tokyo in 1969.
In modern politics, individuals talk as if debate alone can fix the divisions within a nation, yet their words carry little weight. Until words carry conviction instead of performance, they can’t bridge the distance between people.
Words cannot bridge a divide rooted in distrust and existential opposition. Recent research by psychologists demonstrates that political groups differ not only in beliefs but in values and identity, contributing to “partisan animosity” and a breakdown of the trust necessary for democracy.
Each side rejects the other before the conversation even begins. Each is convinced that only their information is credible, and the opposing ideology is dismissed as nonsense.
This cycle creates a rigid belief that one’s own position is unquestionable, while the other side is treated as illegitimate by default. The result is a repeating cycle of ideological distrust that makes genuine conversation nearly impossible.
This dynamic aligns with the political theory of Carl Schmitt, who argued that politics are ultimately reduced to a distinction between “friend and enemy.” In such a framework, opposing groups are not seen as participants in dialogue but as existential threats, making genuine communication nearly impossible.
This approach, now essentially standard in mainstream politics, has hollowed out public discourse. The bridge between opposing views has been worn down by repetition, slogans and empty exchanges.
German philosopher Martin Heidegger argued that language is not just a tool for communication but something that “reveals” and structures our understanding of the world. What remains is language that is technically present but practically meaningless, spoken out of habit rather than understanding.
The question Mishima posed — whether words are still an effective method of communication — remains unanswered in modern politics because the conditions for meaningful dialogue have eroded.
When distrust, performance and ideological rigidity dominate public life, language becomes thin and repetitive, unable to move anyone beyond their own position.
Until political speech regains sincerity and shared meaning, the distance between opposing sides in political debates will continue to widen.
Failure of Communication is a Problem in Today’s Politics
This story was originally published in the GenZeal feature of LNP on Sunday, April 19, 2026.
By Brayden Napolitan ‘26
“I came to see if words are still an effective method of communication,” Japanese writer and political activist Yukio Mishima said during a famous political debate at the University of Tokyo in 1969.
In modern politics, individuals talk as if debate alone can fix the divisions within a nation, yet their words carry little weight. Until words carry conviction instead of performance, they can’t bridge the distance between people.
Words cannot bridge a divide rooted in distrust and existential opposition. Recent research by psychologists demonstrates that political groups differ not only in beliefs but in values and identity, contributing to “partisan animosity” and a breakdown of the trust necessary for democracy.
Each side rejects the other before the conversation even begins. Each is convinced that only their information is credible, and the opposing ideology is dismissed as nonsense.
This cycle creates a rigid belief that one’s own position is unquestionable, while the other side is treated as illegitimate by default. The result is a repeating cycle of ideological distrust that makes genuine conversation nearly impossible.
This dynamic aligns with the political theory of Carl Schmitt, who argued that politics are ultimately reduced to a distinction between “friend and enemy.” In such a framework, opposing groups are not seen as participants in dialogue but as existential threats, making genuine communication nearly impossible.
This approach, now essentially standard in mainstream politics, has hollowed out public discourse. The bridge between opposing views has been worn down by repetition, slogans and empty exchanges.
German philosopher Martin Heidegger argued that language is not just a tool for communication but something that “reveals” and structures our understanding of the world. What remains is language that is technically present but practically meaningless, spoken out of habit rather than understanding.
The question Mishima posed — whether words are still an effective method of communication — remains unanswered in modern politics because the conditions for meaningful dialogue have eroded.
When distrust, performance and ideological rigidity dominate public life, language becomes thin and repetitive, unable to move anyone beyond their own position.
Until political speech regains sincerity and shared meaning, the distance between opposing sides in political debates will continue to widen.
Political Polarization in the American Public | Pew Research Center
The Psychology of Left-Right Political Polarization; and an Experimental Intervention for Curbing Partisan Animosity and Support for Antidemocratic Violence – John T. Jost, Daniela Goya-Tocchetto, Aaron C. Kay, 2023
Martin Heidegger > Heidegger on Language (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The Friend and the Enemy: Carl Schmitt, Katechon, and the Theological Foundations of the Political