Our news seems to be inundated with conflict. Each day we hear about different conflicts in various parts of the world. Peace seems to travel in waves at times – except for Washington D.C. I always maintain hope that our politicians will finally work together to achieve the best possible outcome for all of us, but end up wondering if our leaders breed more contempt than cooperation. No matter which political party is in power, the other party can’t seem to find anything good with their ideas. I understand that not every idea is a good idea, but habitually taking the opposite side on all ideas is extremely dysfunctional! Since people tend to follow in the way their leaders lead them, it shouldn’t be surprising to see the amount of vitriol prevalent on social media. I used to think the problem was that politics attracted a certain type of person, but I’m learning how political design might be at the root of many problems.
The first thing is that there are only two main political parties. Could you imagine if there were only two NFL teams? Football fans would have only one team to love – and one to despise – each weekend being “us versus them”. This is an oversimplification of realistic group conflict theory, where hostility can be created when two groups are competing with one another (Gruman, Schneider, & Coutts, 2016). Members of the same political party see themselves as the in-group, and begin to look down on the members of the other party (out-group). In both the House and the Senate, a leader for each party is nominated whose principal role is similar to the coxswain on a rowing team – to keep the group cohesive. The more solidarity a group achieves, the more prevalent hostility towards the other group becomes (Gruman, Schneider, & Coutts, 2016).
How can we explain the negative behavior of some voters, even though they aren’t actual members of a group like politicians? Looking at social identity theory, I learned that all someone needs is a perception that they belong to a group (Gruman, Schneider, & Coutts, 2016). It’s common to see bumper stickers signifying a preference for a political party or a particular politician, which further embeds a person’s perceived “belonging” to a group. Any criticism of the group can feel like direct criticism to the person identifying with them, causing arguments as they try to protect their image (Gruman, Schneider, & Coutts, 2016).
Lastly, another issue that creates conflict are the polarized priorities that politicians hold. In their paper on conflict management, (Rahim & Bonoma, 1979) state that when a person’s personal interests are more aligned with the job at hand, the formula for managing conflict will be enhanced. However, the interests of our politicians are typically spread in opposite directions between helping others, and winning re-election (self). When self-interest is strongly in play, enacting broad and diverse legislation takes a backseat to winning votes in a conflict. As we’ve seen recently, more people show up to vote when conflict is heightened, meaning this conflict-strategy seems to work better for the politicians than it does for us.
References
Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (2016). Applied Social Psycology; Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Rahim, A., & Bonoma, T. V. (1979). Managing organization conflict: A model for diagnosis and intervention. Psychological Reports, 1323-1344.