We, as Americans, cherish the freedom and right to disagree—which we do, often deeply about important issues that need resolution. But polarization undermines that freedom by tightening prejudices rather than opening thought, thus diminishing the chances for finding resolutions and moving forward. So while polarization may feel like a righteous champion of freedom and right, it is in fact just the opposite—a stick jammed in the spokes of the democratic discourse of freedom. Here are some of the common ways it does it:
- SEDUCES with loaded, heated language and childish name-calling that appeals more to emotion that reason.
- BLINKERS by using cherry-picked facts, and ignoring or mocking opposing arguments and evidence rather than actually addressing them.
- TRIVIALIZES by focusing on “straw-man” issues whose value in re-enforcing biases is clearly greater than their substance.
- BULLIES by making you feel like a dupe or a traitor if you even listen to the other side.
- FLATTERS with language and a tone that makes you feel like an insider, who, of course, agrees with them because you “get it” … just like they do.
- FRIGHTENS by portraying the other side as not just wrong, but a dangerous, evil enemy, replete with wicked hidden agendas.
- “CLANS,” that is, plays the “us vs. them” identity politics game of associating the other view with groups or people (implicitly) “inferior” to “us.”
- “TRIBES” by using the knowing winks and nods of sarcasm, coded language, words in quotes (suggesting they’re misleading) and innuendo which you, as a member of the tribe, of course, will understand without explanation or justification.
This week . . . it’s all about James Comey. Last week we noted that name calling was the bottom of the barrel of corrupting political discourse. This week, we’re barraged with “slimeball”… “liar”… ”corrupt”… ”disingenuous”… ”morally unfit”… ”egocentric”… and worse, not just from fringe pundits but from the mouths of our nation’s highest leaders. Imagine waking from a long Van-Winkle sleep into this America. One of the dangers in pointing out polarization is false equivalency — acting as though both sides of the argument are equally legitimate, when in fact one side is clearly stronger than the other. But the antidote to that is not to pile on with “your side” but to recognize that the degeneracy of rational discourse into name calling and finger pointing undermines not just one side but both sides of the argument. Or, as the old saying succinctly puts it, “You can’t win a pissing contest with a skunk.”
When reading these examples, check the above list and ask yourself: regardless of whether you agree or disagree, is this really advancing an intelligent resolution through the persuasive, rational arguments of advocacy…or simply fueling the fire of conflict through the divisive, emotional manipulations of polarization?
Here are just a few of the week’s polarizing headlines, from the left and right:
