Is There a Light at the End of the Tunnel of Extreme Polarization?
In the short term, no. The magnitude of the problem shows up in just two polls. Sixty-four percent of Americans think the political system is too divided to solve the nation’s problems, a rise from 42 percent in 2020. The other party, both Republicans and Democrats say, is more “closed-minded, dishonest, immoral and unintelligent” than other Americans.
So where does hope lie? When we look at polls about local politics, a more hopeful picture emerges. While 89 percent of local officials decry the negative effects of polarization nationally, only 31 percent are worried about the downsides of polarization in their communities, and the smaller the community, the less the impact of national political battles. A big part of this more positive view is that problems at the local level are more concrete – roads, schools, zoning, trash removal – subject to debate but less subject to political positioning encouraged by national figures. Another part is that there are many local avenues to engage in politics in helpful ways - school boards, parent groups, sports, libraries, parks, community associations - where diverse views are focused on solving local issues to improve the quality of life. Still further, people at the local level can get to know each other when they interact on issues, and “knowing” most often means experiencing another person as human, not a political stereotype. Social contact can be more civil, increasing the chance for mutual respect, a willingness to discuss diverse views and a reluctance to engage in political grandstanding.
Beyond the local level, things get tougher – but not hopeless. For example, one study demonstrated that people are more willing to listen to those with opposing views if they share similar views on human rights or rules of etiquette in dealing with others. That is, they share important common values. After receiving information that they do share these values, participants listened to recordings of people expressing opposing views on immigration, abortion laws and gun ownership. The findings: many people adjusted their views relative to a control group, who did not, thus reducing polarization. When the participants felt this connection on common values, they were more inclined to consider opponents as part of “us” vs. part of “them.”
In another study of the potential to decrease polarization on social media, participants were paired with someone who had an opposite politically party identification though they didn’t know their partner’s party preference. They were asked to engage in an anonymous, asynchronous chat online at least 14 times with their partner on immigration or gun control. The results revealed a decline in disagreement on controversial issues and improved views of their partner. According to the researchers, the anonymity (which shielded their party preference) may have reduced the social pressure to conform to party views. Said another way, people could engage as citizens not as partisans.
There are some intriguing technological approaches that might diminish extreme polarization if put to use. Fact-checking websites and the sharing of factual data (e.g. respected surveys) can help correct misperceptions and conspiracies that abound in partisan rhetoric. These can be useful IF political partisans are willing to examine information they don’t usually see.
Of course, the echo chambers that harden political views don’t admit contradictory facts to be seen, so some researchers tested if a technological solution might help. They created a tool that put posts that display antidemocratic attitudes and partisan animosity lower in the feed of 1,200 participants over a ten-day period during the 2024 election. When users were exposed to less of the negative content at the front of their feed (it was still there, but lower) they displayed more positive views of the other political party. In a related study, the researchers upranked or downranked the offensive content. When compared to a control group, those who saw the negative content higher in their feed had colder views of the opposing party, when compared to a control group. Those who saw more positive content on the top of their feed felt warmer.
While these studies show some promise, a significant reduction in extreme political polarization will be very difficult. Researchers who analyzed 25 published studies examining 77 different approaches to reducing partisan animosity found that warmth toward the opposing political party increased by only 5.4 points on a 101-point scale. Looking at 20 studies that did follow-up to see if improvements lasted, they found that almost all of this improvement had been lost within two weeks.
Political polarization, it’s important to acknowledge, is not inherently dangerous. Indeed, those who crafted the Constitution assumed there would be what they called “factions” and that they could play a useful role in government. The danger would come when their passions were unchecked. As experience at the local level and the studies shared here demonstrate, there are ways to bring Americans together and decrease the dangers of extreme partisanship. Funding for research and operation of programs aimed at using such methods and finding others would help. Clearly, however, solutions will require the openness of individual citizens to alter their behavior. It will also require that leaders in government, the media, technology, business and the broader culture recognize that their behavior too often worsens the problem and that the immediate gains they seek through extreme polarization come at the long-term expense of a good society.
Photo Credit: snowscat - unsplash.com
