If you read the news or hear casual conversation about politics, you’ve probably heard that America is extremely polarized, almost to a degree of a second civil war. Political Scientist Barbara F. Walter at the University of California San Diego said that “we are closer to civil war than any of us would like to believe ”. That seems scary. Could America survive states seceding? I’m not sure. However, similarly to what I do after settling into a hotel, let’s unpack a bit. When examining polarization, scholars distinguish between affective polarization (a dislike of the other political party/out group) and ideological polarization (differences on the policy issues). There is no doubt Republicans and Democrats are at odds with each other more than ever. Political Scientist Shanto Iyengar and colleagues published a paper that showed average trends for participants identifying with an in-party or the out-party. The in-party feeling has slightly decreased from 1996 to 2016 but has stayed relatively stable. The out-party feeling started declining in 1992 and declining further starting in 2008. This means that people identifying with a group see co-partisans (people of the same party/group) more favorably than members of a different group. Scholars argue the various reasons for affective polarization: social identities, political campaigns running more negative ads, a more polarized media, etc.
Ideological polarization, on the other hand, is all about the issues. Pew Research tracked data from 1994-2014, and Democrats and Republicans are far more ideologically divided now than in the past. More people have moved to the extremes in the 20 years Pew studied. But when you go to the issues, a different story is told. A poll by the McCourtney Institute for Democracy noted that over 90% of Democrats support both universal background checks and gun licensing, while 80% and 54% of Republicans support the measures respectively. On raising the minimum wage, Democrats support raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25/hour to $12 by 95%, $17 by 94$, and $20 by 89%. Republicans support the measures by 82%, 60% and 60% respectively. On legalizing weed, Gallup found that Republicans support the measure with 55% and Democrats support it with 87%. On raising taxes on the rich, 74% of surveyed Republicans supported it compared with 92% of Democrats. How is it that on the issues both Republicans and Democrats agree but they can’t stand each other? This brings us back to the reasons for affective polarization. A more polarized mass media has created echo chambers where partisans can seek refuge from opposing viewpoints. In a Pew Research survey, Democrats were more likely to consume MSNBC, NYT, NPR and CNN, while Republicans were more likely to view Fox News. This creates audience capture, where networks have built an audience based on a political identity, and it is almost impossible to bring differing opinions into the discussion. It is a self-reinforcing feedback loop that rewards the networks for telling listeners what they want to hear.
We agree on the policy issues that need to be tackled, but hate each other’s guts. How do we solve this? That is the million dollar question. If the American people can take off their political blinders and be open to new ideas (it doesn’t mean you have to agree with them), not play for blue team or red team and be objective about simple facts (such as more guns makes the country less safe, anthropogenic climate change is happening) then it is possible to rally around policy, and not hold such disdain about the political opposition. If the media, pundits and politicians gave credit (where it was due) on specific issues to the opposition, viewers could see that they are being fair, objective, and not partisan hacks. I probably disagree with Rep. Matt Gaetz on 90% of his policies, but I agree with his efforts to ban lawmakers from trading stocks. If I was in Congress, I would work hand in hand with him, not chastise him because he has an R next to his name. It’s easier said than done for sure, but if we can make collective efforts to not play for a team, and be consistent on policy beliefs, then we can truly change affective polarization.