Fighting Pernicious Polarization

Let's Talk about What Matters Differently

Happy Fourth of July!

This is the 247th birthday of the United States, and it should be a time of celebrating many years of success and great hopes for the future. Unfortunately, polling in recent years has shown significant public doubt about the direction of the country.

Wait. Where Are We Going?

A recent NBC News poll showed that only 23% of all adults in the United States believed the country was going in the right direction.

Predictably, Democrats and Republicans held dramatically different views. Still, even Democrats were barely over 40% confident despite a Democratic President at the helm. This has been a trend for several years, as the article also summarized,

“We have never before seen this level of sustained pessimism in the 30-year-plus history of the poll.”

Similarly, Pew Research polls over many years have shown a long-term decline in trust in government, dropping from around 77% in 1964 to about 20% in 2020. You can see this in the chart below.

This effect is likey related to declining support for democracy, particularly among Republicans. I mentioned this in my article on the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the risk to the world order.

Political Polarization—It’s a Thing

Many researchers—including myself—believe these poll results are symptomatic of political polarization. In fact, 20 years ago, I published a book based on my doctoral dissertation that predicted political polarization would increase and be detrimental to the future of the United States. I also wrote a 2007 paper called Revitalizing the Public Sphere that covered similar themes. Unfortunately, these predictions appear to be coming true

Although political polarization is occurring worldwide, it is markedly worse in the United States. The York Times illustrated the difference using data from the Varieties of Democracy Institute, as shown below.

What Causes Political Polarization?

Various studies over the last two decades have confirmed my fundamental assertion that the key issue is how the media and political institutions interact to foment an “us vs them” mentality. Certainly, there are real issues that divide America and populations around the world. But, rather than encouraging a shared and compassionate view of how to work together, the media and politicians become a mutually supporting system that amplifies divisions to create more television viewers, sell more books, and get more votes. This is done by increasing fear and outrage about what “the other side” is doing. As I discussed concerning the recent debt ceiling debate, the resulting system of the advertising-based mass media and poll-absorbed politicians tends to foster a political dialogue that emphasizes stirring people up rather than making smart decisions.

This is augmented by confirmation bias, which is the tendency to seek out information that supports our own beliefs and reject any information that contradicts our beliefs. The mainstream news knows this, and so they purposely serve up the information you want to hear. This results in Fox News literally lying about election fraud and CNN News spending 90% of the day dissecting former-President Trump’s allegedly illegal retention of classified documents.

With the mainstream news (and social media) as a flame starter, agitated people group together and talk to each other, which increases their belief in being right. The New Yorker writer Elizabeth Kolbert describes it as follows:

The standard explanation for this is the so-called echo-chamber effect. On Facebook, people “friend” people with similar views—either their genuine friends or celebrities and other public figures they admire. Trump supporters tend to hear from other Trump supporters, and Trump haters from other Trump haters. A study by researchers inside Facebook showed that only about a quarter of the news content that Democrats post on the platform is viewed by Republicans, and vice versa. A study of Twitter use found similar patterns. Meanwhile, myriad studies, many dating back to before the Internet was ever dreamed of, have demonstrated that, when people confer with others who agree with them, their views become more extreme. Social scientists have dubbed this effect “group polarization,” and many worry that the Web has devolved into one vast group-polarization palooza.

This net effect of confirmation bias and group polarization is what The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace calls a “pernicious polarization” that threatens democracy itself. They explain as follows:

At the elite level, deep political divides in Washington have crippled efforts at legislative compromise, eroded institutional and behavioral norms, and incentivized politicians to pursue their aims outside of gridlocked institutions, including through the courts. Yet these divides extend far beyond the corridors of power, as polarization at the mass level is pushing Americans across the country to divide themselves into distinct and mutually exclusive political camps. The rise of an “us versus them” mindset and political identity in American sociopolitical life is evident in everything from the rise of highly partisan media to the decline in Americans’ willingness to marry someone from the opposing political party. Even more concerningly, these dynamics are contributing directly to a steep rise in political violence.

Shifting the Conversation

Moving away from pernicious political polarization is challenging and likely involves interventions in many areas of the economy and government. Maybe we need to change the election system, campaign funding, how disinformation is flagged, or any number of other issues. But, to get there, we need a change in public opinion, spending, and votes—which so far still matter.

This means the change can start with each of us. We can begin by shifting the conversation and ultimately taking different actions. This will then influence others to do the same.

If you’re reading this, you are already smarter than the average bear, so you might want to consider going even a few steps further. Here are four basic shifts to try, which will not only reduce polarization but improve your relationships in general.

• Build bridges rather than differences. For example,

  • Seek to know the values you share with others. Don’t we all value family, financial security, and peace?

  • Assume others have positive intentions. Another common fallacy is assuming the flaws of others are due to their bad character, while our flaws are due to circumstances outside our control.

• Avoid “Us vs Them.” Democracy is supposed to be about justice for all, not the dominance of one party over the other. When we evaluate politicians based on taking a “no compromises” position, it is an invitation for the exercise of political or even physical power. Instead, we need to expect our politicians to act in a bi-partisan way and seek compromise.

• Treat the news with healthy skepticism. All advertising-based news sources rely on reaching as many viewers as possible. Therefore, they use sensationalism to draw you in, which means they purposely emphasize the most emotionally charged issues and feed your confirmation bias. To counteract this, always wonder:

  • “What is the other side of the story?”

  • “What are they not reporting on?”

• Emphasize dialogue over debate. Rather than winning debates, we should help each other clear up misconceptions. This is often best done using the practice of dialogue in small groups with other people, where both sides seek to understand each other and reach a higher level of truth.

These are areas Essential Issues can help. This newsletter frames the conversation with facts and invites you to think differently and contribute your perspective. Participants in the conversation should follow the conventions of constructive conversation. This can start counteracting group polarization and build relationships so that we can then use our shared understanding to act, vote, spend, and invest better.

Please consider subscribing and contributing your ideas to the conversation!