Polarization is Dangerous. Cat is the Answer.

We are becoming increasingly polarized. Not since the Civil War have we been so far apart ideologically in our country.(1) Even during the lead up to the Civil War, we often found more in common then we do today.

Not only are we polarizing faster than we ever have as a country, it’s happening more than any other democracy on earth.(2) To see just how polarized we have become, just look at this graph from the Pew Research Center:

The founding fathers feared polarization would bring down our republic.

John Adams said, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

And then George Washington, “[Party loyalty] serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”

Yet we have polarized to such a degree that finding commonality seems almost impossible. One reason for the inability to find anything which we agree on is that we have added complexity to our positions and taken our beliefs as our own person. University of Maryland Professor Lilliana Mason calls this “Stacking of identities.”(3) We see ourselves as either conservative or liberal, and then we add on to what that means. A conservative is supposed to be about fiscal policy and small government. Still, a conservative will struggle if they don’t agree that immigrants are flooding the country, and abortion should be illegal. Similarly, liberals stack identities, such as racial equality and gay rights, onto their beliefs in regulation and governmental assistance.

The more we accumulate positions into our prevailing ideology, the less individuality of thought emerges.

Members of different parties do not hold firmly to their party’s policy content. Instead, the stacking effect creates “a sense of inclusion and a sense of exclusion”(4) that binds them together despite apparent differences. Think of the conservative reaction to government overreach when it happens from within their party. Or the liberal response to a democratic president furthering foreign wars.

Indeed, many of us will argue principles vehemently while excusing our party for violating them. The reason for this is that we crave the affirmation that comes from membership in our club. Psychologically speaking, we long for two things. Inclusion; or the ability to know we are a part of a tribe. The second is exclusion, knowing that we are different from the “bad” people.(5)

To put it simply, “Identities are not primarily about adherence to a group ideology or creed. They are emotional attachments that transcend thinking.”(6)

It would be easy to put this off on Donald Trump and his divisive language, but as Peter Grier wrote,

“The election of President Trump did not start this pattern of polarization. It’s been slowly developing for decades. But the Trump era has electrified the barrier of party division.”(7)

In other words, Trump has made it a lot worse, but he didn’t start it; it’s not his fault.

So how do we untangle this mess?

One would think that since exposure to one’s current ideology increases the divide, then simply encouraging exposure to competing ideas would fix the problem. Unfortunately, the opposite effect occurs. Exposure to a competing thought causes us to dig in and exacerbates our tribalism.(8) It has to go beyond ideas and into the realm of humanizing the opposition.

The Berkley University’s Greater Good Magazine has some excellent thoughts on the subject, but the one that stood out to me was the need for “Intergroup Connect.”(9) Following the UK’s model of Citizen Assemblies, we in the United States could elect trusted representatives apart from government or region- but based on micro-ideology, to discuss and suggest compromised policy changes. This very act forces us out of our tribe as we root for a common body to return non-ideological insight.

There are many other great ideas, like redistricting, the return of bipartisan Senate meetings, multi-member house districts, and ranked-choice voting, to name a few. While there are a lot of great ideas being proffered, I would like to focus on the human rather than the political. What can I do right now to make a difference?(10)

Here is one idea- Ask about her cat.

I use the term “Ask about her cat” representatively. Let me explain. We all have the loudmouthed soap boxers looming over our social media. Often they want to say their piece and go unchallenged. They call people out for unfriending them, they start with namecalling and use their bully pulpit to belittle those not in their tribe. For these people, and they are legion, it’s not about participating in the public dialogue. It’s about winning points and rising in standing within their tribe. Next time you come across this punditry, foaming at the mouth and brawling in the proverbial street, ask about her cat. How is it doing? If she doesn’t have a cat, ask about something of which she cares. Children, vacations, a new car, or a personal achievement. Take a second and care about what they care about before engaging. Be a human being first, and others won’t be able to label you with a partisan armband. Earn the right to talk about the delicate matters of another persons tribe.

I genuinely believe that the way to overcome partisanship is with friendship. Try it.

_______________________________

SOURCES

1. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/20061208.pdf
2. https://phys.org/news/2020-01-polarizing-faster-democracies.html
3. Liliana Mason’s Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity
4. Brewer, Marilynn B 2001 “The Many Faces of Social Identity: Implications for Political Psychology.” Political Psychology
5. Tajfel, Henri, and John Turner 1979 “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict”
6. Achen, Christopher H., and Larry M. Bartels 2016 “Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government”
7. https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2018/1019/Risk-of-a-new-civil-war-Today-us-and-them-differs-from-1850s
8. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/is_social_media_driving_political_polarization
9. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/what_are_the_solutions_to_political_polarization
10. https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-to-fix-politics-in-america/polarization/