The Techniques of Polarization

This week . . . as we were supposed to be celebrating the birthday of our nation, and arguably, the greatest manifestation of freedom in human history, it was all there in shameful abundance: Seducing, blinkering, trivializing, bullying, flattering, frightening, “klanning” and “tribing” . . . all the techniques of polarization that undermine the discursive democratic process essential to sustaining the freedom that July 4 represents. Two books reviewed in a recent New York Times Review of Booksoffer sobering real-world looks at “The Death of Democracy” and “How Democracies Die,” where scapegoating, the politics of resentment, the undermining of institutions and the press, and reframing the opposition as the enemy played a key role. Perhaps it’s overkill—or just sour grapes— to suggest that’s where today’s political climate is heading. But the apparatus of freedom is nothing more than a set of rules we all agree to agree on and respect, even when we’re on the losing side of a given debate. Which means it’s as malleable and fragile as the language we use to express it. Words, in short, matter. So it’s worth thinking about.

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.