{"id":29035,"date":"2020-11-08T16:32:06","date_gmt":"2020-11-09T00:32:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/?p=29035"},"modified":"2020-11-09T16:34:43","modified_gmt":"2020-11-10T00:34:43","slug":"the-political-divide-in-america-goes-beyond-polarization-and-tribalism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/?p=29035","title":{"rendered":"The Political Divide in America Goes Beyond Polarization and Tribalism"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n

Eli J Finkel<\/a><\/p>\n

Cynthia S. Wang<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n

By now, Americans are used to hearing how \u201cpolarized\u201d our country is\u2014how Democrats and Republicans live in separate worlds, or \u201cecho chambers,\u201d with each side prone to bias or \u201cmotivated reasoning.\u201d Pundits and scholars have made the case ad nauseum for years.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

But the truth might be that it\u2019s even worse than we think, and that polarization doesn\u2019t quite capture the partisan rancor we see on our screens.<\/p>\n

According to a new paper, the term that best describes our strife is \u201cpolitical sectarianism,\u201d or the tendency of political groups to align on the basis of moralized identities rather than shared ideas or policy preferences.<\/p>\n

The paper\u2019s authors include\u00a0Eli Finkel<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Cynthia Wang<\/a>, both professors at the Kellogg School, and\u00a0James Druckman<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Mary McGrath<\/a>, both professors of political science at Northwestern, as well as eleven others from a range of disciplines. All of the authors had planned to attend a conference hosted by Kellogg\u2019s\u00a0Dispute Resolution and Research Center<\/a>\u00a0and Northwestern\u2019s\u00a0Institute for Policy Research<\/a>\u00a0before the pandemic intervened, leading the group to put their ideas into a paper instead.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s not just that people only trust or associate with their own side,\u201d says Wang, who directs the Center. \u201cIt\u2019s that they\u2019re contemptuous of the other side, whom they see as \u2018other\u2019 and less moral\u2014an existential threat. This rise in out-group hate is what we find so alarming.\u201d<\/p>\n

Some may call this \u201ctribalism.\u201d But tribalism is based on the metaphor of kinship. In the authors\u2019 view, a better metaphor may be the near-schismatic divides that have historically separated religious sects such as Sunni from Shia or Protestant from Catholic. Hence the term \u201csectarianism.\u201d<\/p>\n

The point is not that the beliefs of Democrats or Republicans derive from religion, but rather that political identity in America today functions as if it is a religious identity. \u201cPeople on the other side are not just wrong; they\u2019re evil. People on our side who are not sufficiently pure are apostates,\u201d says Finkel.<\/p>\n

This overarching idea emerged from a body of research that spans many disciplines, frameworks, and constructs\u2014each with its own emphases and findings.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn a real sense, polarization is not the problem,\u201d Finkel says. \u201cClear, well-articulated differences across political parties are a good thing. The problem is that Americans have grown hateful toward opposing partisans based more on a religion-like social identity than on actual disagreements about policies.\u201d<\/p>\n

A \u201cPoisonous Cocktail\u201d<\/h2>\n

Political sectarianism, according to the researchers, has three core ingredients. The first is \u201cothering,\u201d or the tendency to view opponents as fundamentally different or alien from oneself. The second, \u201caversion,\u201d involves intense dislike and distrust of this other. The third is \u201cmoralization,\u201d or the perception that one\u2019s political opponents are wicked or even criminal.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s the combination of all three that makes political sectarianism so corrosive,\u201d Wang says. \u201cEach on its own has adverse effects, but it is the coexistence of all three that creates the poisonous cocktail of political sectarianism.\u201d<\/p>\n

For example, two partisans with opposing ideologies might still, given a baseline of trust, solve their policy differences through compromise or persuasion. But if each views the other as a moral threat, it\u2019s a different game. \u201cNow it\u2019s zero-sum,\u201d Wang says, where compromise feels like apostasy.<\/p>\n

Divisiveness in American politics is certainly nothing new\u2014nor is it always a bad thing. A healthy democracy requires a regular contest of ideas, and bipartisanship can sometimes mask deep social inequities. In the 1870s, for example, political compromises disenfranchised women and racial minorities. In 1950, some political scientists\u00a0worried<\/a>\u00a0that the U.S. wasn\u2019t polarized enough\u2014that its politics were too localized, and that voters would be better served by a two-party system with distinct positions and national platforms.<\/p>\n

More recently, however, studies reveal that out-party hatred now exceeds in-group solidarity. In addition, Americans\u2019 voting behavior today is driven more strongly by contempt for the opposition than by support for one\u2019s own side.<\/p>\n

The Thirty Years\u2019 War<\/h2>\n

The weary citizen might inquire: How did our politics get so toxic? Is it possible to interpret the last four years as a deviation?<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, no, the researchers say. Their paper points to causes and trends that date back thirty years.<\/p>\n

Part of the story has to do with Republicans and Democrats having sorted into identity groups that extend beyond politics. These \u201cmega-identities\u201d have grown almost mutually incomprehensible: studies show that each group dramatically misperceives the other. As the researchers point out, \u201cRepublicans estimate that 32 percent of Democrats are LGBT when in reality it is 6 percent; Democrats estimate that 38 percent of Republicans earn over $250,000 per year when in reality it is 2 percent.\u201d<\/p>\n

These identities are reinforced by dueling media ecosystems, which the researchers say can be traced back to the Reagan administration\u2019s move to terminate the \u201cfairness doctrine\u201d put in place after World War II to reduce bias in broadcasting. In the intervening decades, this move has given us Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and MSNBC. And in the last decade, Facebook and Twitter have intensified sectarianism, since posts that use inflammatory and moralizing language are\u00a0promoted by the algorithms<\/a>\u00a0meant to push \u201cengagement.\u201d<\/p>\n

There\u2019s also the trend of stark divergence among political elites, who increasingly depend on extremist donors, and who, beginning with Newt Gingrich and his followers in the 1980s and 1990s, often relied on \u201cthe rhetoric of moral outrage\u201d to gain support, as the researchers point out.<\/p>\n

The consequences are predictably dire, argue the researchers: increased social alienation, a breakdown of civic trust and norms, and a compromised democracy in which leaders beholden to extremist donors care more about partisan purity than actual constituents.<\/p>\n

\u201cPartisans on both sides have generated coherent narratives, which they experience as capital-T truth,\u201d says Finkel. \u201cAnd although the details of the two narratives are entirely different, they align in promoting the belief that the other side is so corrupt that our side would be gullible dupes to adhere to the sorts of norms that have long upheld democracy in America.\u201d<\/p>\n

The effects have been on full display in the country\u2019s response to COVID-19. Perhaps most alarming is the tendency of partisans, in response to the \u201cexistential threat\u201d the other side poses, to justify antidemocratic behavior: violating election laws, flouting checks and balances, even promoting unrest.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs political sectarianism has surged in recent years,\u201d the researchers write, \u201cso too has support for violent tactics.\u201d<\/p>\n

Lowering the Temperature<\/h2>\n

So what can we do, as policymakers or citizens, to mitigate political sectarianism in the U.S.? How do we build a political culture that\u2019s focused on ideas and not unbridgeable identities?<\/p>\n

\u201cThe short answer is, slow and steady. There aren\u2019t any silver bullets,\u201d Wang says.<\/p>\n

Still, the researchers discuss a few possible interventions. For example, correcting our misperceptions of those in the opposing group might help reduce hostility, and learning to focus on policy details rather than identity groups might give partisans a greater appreciation for complexity and foster a sense of humility. According to the authors, \u201cleaders of civic, re\u00adligious, and media organizations committed to bridging divides can look to such strate\u00adgies to reduce intellectual self-righteousness that can contribute to political sectarianism.\u201d<\/p>\n

A big question is what to do about social media\u2019s influence. How do we encourage people to spend time assessing the accuracy of claims on Facebook or Twitter? One potential strategy is to rely on crowdsourcing to identify accurate content and reward it through the algorithm, thus reducing the spread of false or hyper-partisan posts and memes.<\/p>\n

Campaign finance reform might help\u2014by eliminating huge contributions from the most extreme donors\u2014and fixing partisan gerrymandering would encourage more competition in the marketplace of ideas.<\/p>\n

There are also strategies that might work at the individual level, such as learning to adopt some of the moral language of the other side when engaging with individuals with a different political identity. For example, liberals could discuss mask wearing in terms of homeland security, or conservatives could talk about deficit reduction in terms of caring for poorer Americans in the future.<\/p>\n

\u201cSometimes a different frame or use of language can be quite powerful,\u201d Wang says. \u201cWhen you\u2019re dealing with parallel realities, you have to find effective ways to communicate across that divide.\u201d<\/p>\n

The researchers hope that their own reframing of the challenges facing the nation spurs meaningful discussion\u2014and perhaps even action\u2014by academics and policymakers.<\/p>\n

\u201cHopefully we\u2019ll get great feedback, and some of these interventions can be tested or applied,\u201d says Wang. \u201cBut we see this as a first step. There\u2019s a long way to go.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Eli J Finkel Cynthia S. Wang...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29035","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-opinion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29035","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=29035"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29035\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":29036,"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29035\/revisions\/29036"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=29035"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=29035"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=29035"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}