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 . . . diving back into the headlines after having been away from the political cauldron for a few days with the flu, I found myself reacting as any normal, interested citizen might – with outrage, dismay, shock, effectively yelling back (mentally at least) at the paper/screen. And suddenly I realized: Gotchah! I was in a state of full blown polarization. I HATED what the “other side” was doing and wanted it stopped NOW. And, yes I was polarized…but they were WRONG!
And what’s the matter with that?
And this this why polarization is so effective and destructive.
Polarization divides things into two opposing camps: Good/Bad; with two solutions: Win/Lose. The problem with that formulation is that many, if not all, of our most fundamental political/societal values, at some point, conflict with each other. Take freedom and equality. We cherish both, but at some point they conflict: Tipping too far to freedom leads to freewheeling anarchy and gross inequality; tipping too far to equality leads to the procrustean bed of a freedom-crushing system of like communism. So how do you resolve the conflict? Reframe it. Instead of asking which side should win, ask how do we reconcile, balance and preserve both? That is the role of political discourse and deliberation, and the apparatus of constitutional democracy. Polarization’s Good/Bad, Win/Lose framing undercuts that process, and in the course, destroys the intricately woven fabric of the rights, freedoms and responsibilities of liberal democracy that is America.
It seems simple. The problem is that polarization is incredibly seductive. Why? First, because slashing through the Gordian knot of complex political issues is satisfyingly simple and fast, compared to the slow, messy process of haggling, bargaining, bartering and compromising involved in deliberation. But more importantly, polarization is enticing because it’s less about resolving conflict that about feeding hunger for empowerment. In a famous study, people who felt we wrongly spent too much money on foreign aid were asked what percent of the federal budget went to it? They said 26%. But when they learned that it was less than 1%, a significant number still felt it was wrong to spend that much. Why didn’t the facts instantly change their attitude? Because the outrage of righteous indignation over being wronged feels empowering, and it’s very hard to forsake that rush of empowerment, reality—or consequences—be damned. Thus the number of divorces that turn so rancorous, the number of political issues that remain irreconcilable. That is why polarization is so destructive, and why its perpetrators are so dangerous. They’re not really about resolving conflict. They’re about pushing the empowerment of outrage…reality—or consequences—be damned.
So if the understandable desire to crush the “other side” when facing a truly outrageous situation is not the answer, what is? Refuse to play by the rules dictated polarization. Take control away from the polarizers by reframing the question, beginning with these four questions: 1) Am I more interested in resolving a conflict or winning? 2) How do I know “my side” is right? 3) How do I know “your side” is wrong? 4) What if I’m wrong? In contrast to the authoritarian arrogance of pushing polarization, it’s a stance that might be called the passionate humility of protecting freedom.
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 a few of the week’s polarizing headlines, from the left and right:
Blue Headlines
Here’s the Right-Wing Plan to Destroy Unions and Hinder Democratic Fundraising
These right-wing pundits keep posting identical Facebook remarks to promote a clickbait website
Far-right media immediately float conspiracy theories about Austin bombings
Right-wing media botch GAO report to push myth that taxpayers are funding abortion
