We Hate Our Foes More Than We Love Our Friends
Polarization. Everyone seems to know that we are more polarized today than ever. You cannot be moderately politically informed and escape conversations about polarization, negative polarization, and how divided we are as a nation. But what exactly can we do to overcome polarization?
Enter a new study published in PNAS by Rachel Gershon and Ariel Fridman. On the surface, Gershon and Fridman's study seems bleak. They conducted a series of studies showing that when placed in a lose-lose situation, members of one group would harm their group rather than help their opposition. Consider the topic of abortion, one of the examples Gershon and Fridman used for their study. When offered a choice between providing equal donations to a pro-life and pro-choice group where an increase of $1 to your side meant an addition of $1 to the opposition, pro-life individuals would take money away from the pro-life group rather than increase the amount given to both groups. In other words, the polarization is so intense that when presented with a lose-lose situation, members of a group would damage their chances rather than help another group.
Something about our nature as humans has wired us to believe that it is better to harm our side than to aid a group we do not like. Actual history has shown this to be the case. In 1959, a federal court deemed the segregated, publicly funded Oak Pool in Montgomery, Alabama, unconstitutional. White members of Montgomery faced what they perceived to be a lose-lose choice: allow Black citizens to swim in Oak Pool or close the pool entirely. They chose to close the pool.
We can find examples of this in recent history, too. The last six years have been filled with examples of people hurting themselves rather than helping an opposing group. Look at the recent mid-term elections as an example. Republicans supported a host of candidates who were of low quality. Some candidates did not understand what the job they were running for would require of them, and others were promising to be outright authoritarian in their attempts to overturn a settled presidential election from two years ago. Still, Republican voters would rather have a low-quality Republican who may not be able to do the job before them than support a competent Democrat or not support either candidate. Nihilism seems to be the current philosophy of all American politics. If our side can't win, everything is meaningless, and we should do as much damage as possible, even if it hurts us. There are better strategies than this for any side.
So what can we do to change things? The PNAS study found that shifting group norms about in-group behavior allows for a cooling of temperatures when supporting out-groups. Gershon and Fridman cover this, and their results are surprisingly simple. Their study showed that telling a pro-life group that 70% of pro-lifers chose to add money to a pro-choice group rather than take money away from pro-life groups increased the number of pro-lifers willing to help the pro-choice group. The study also discusses how false polarization, exaggerating opposing groups' beliefs, has negatively impacted our ability to cooperate.
I have suggested before that one way to help end polarization is for more of us to acknowledge that the opposing side is made up of decent people who are simply trying their best to solve a problem from a different viewpoint. Merely believing in the other side's humanity makes it easier for both sides to work with each other. Gershon and Fridman's study bears this out.
So the work set before us is to help conservatives and liberals see each other as humans first and partisans second, third or even last. To see that every solution posed by a different group is not necessarily an attempt to end our side but instead the work of people trying their best to improve the lives of everyone in our country. It is not an easy task, but we cannot continue to allow polarization and nihilism to rule the day if we expect there to be anything left to conserve and work for.
4 More Things
1) Michelle Goldberg has a quick discussion with Russell Moore, Editor in Chief of Christianity Today, about evangelical leaders refusing to back Trump again for 2024. In short, Moore is skeptical this will continue to play out. As long as the rank-and-file Trump supporters, who make up the members of these leader's churches or support, continue to be pro-Trump, Moore believes the leaders will eventually find a reason to be pro-Trump. It's a dour prediction, but it is what happened in 2016 and after.
2) In a world where anyone can put out a fake tweet, news article, or deepfake video, it's harder to distinguish between what news is real and what is intentionally trying to deceive folks. Poynter has a great resource with tips on what to look for to ensure that what you are reading or watching is real.
3) Stewart Rhodes, the now convicted leader of the far-right militia, the Oath Keepers, has been in the news for his part in the Jan 6th insurrection. His conviction is essential, but just as important is understanding that his actions did not just harm our country; they have had a lasting impact on his family. A family that, according to this BBC profile, is now freed from the terror Rhodes inflicted on them for years. The profile is a heartbreaking reminder of the damage that misinformation and conspiracies have wrought on everyday families.
4) John Inazu has a great defense of pluralism in his newsletter. It focuses on the argument between Al Mohler and David French on whether Christians can support the recent Respect for Marriage Act but goes beyond that. Put short, pluralism is needed for a healthy democracy to survive, and Inazu gives an excellent defense.