Cissy Ming
3/27/18
Not only black and white: A proposal for bringing back political diversity
Politicians commonly speak of America two countries within one political entity, only nominally united by their citizenship in the United States. From Hillary Clinton’s recent speech which labeled her opponents part of a “backwards” looking America to Donald Trump’s routine denunciation of wealthy globalist elites, examples of tribalism based on political party are apparent to any casual follower of the news. However, the hyperbolic rhetoric of today’s top political players mirrors the same divide among their supporters, the American voters. Pew polling data demonstrates that since the 1990s, Democrats and Republicans have become more likely to express negative feelings toward oppositely-inclined partisans and avoid associating with them. While some critics blame the toxicity of political discourse on now-President Trump, his victory in the Republican primaries and subsequent election to the White House was partly made possible by the intense distrust on both sides. Advocating for a healthier political atmosphere is not a function of opposing Trump’s demeanor or policies, but a necessary task to ensure that the American experiment continues.
Unfortunately, a large number of Americans hold contempt not only for ideas that contradict their values, but the people who believe those ideas. During the 2016 election, an anonymous Republican penned the widely read “The Flight 93 Election” essay, in which he likened a vote for Trump to a last-ditch effort to prevent a terrorist attack. To warn of the price of a Clinton victory, the author described the death of religious liberty, establishment of a McCarthy-ite police state and other dire consequences for the conservative movement and traditional Americans at large. “If you don’t try,” he wrote, “death is certain” before attacking other conservatives for their undue optimism. Although few would frame the political debate in such stark terms, the “Flight 93” mentality appears to a smaller degree in the 27 percent of Democrats and 36 percent of Republicans who told Pew that the other party’s policies threatened the well-being of the nation. The left-right divergence of the parties accounts somewhat for the rise in negative attitudes, but the same Pew survey found that a majority of consistent liberals and conservatives express reluctance to live in communities with one another. When searching for a place to live, the conservatives and liberals featured in Bill Bishop’s book “The Big Sort” drive around to gather impressions of their prospective neighbors’ leanings — checking to see whether churches or organic food stores predominate. Voters perceive the other side as a negative influence on communities and the children they will raise in those communities. The trend toward sorting into like-minded enclaves shows partisan polarization creates a positive feedback loop, in which mutual dislike increases due to lack of personal familiarity with the opposition.
Figure 1: American communities have “sorted” along political lines, as seen in this infographic documenting the increasing number of “landslide” counties — those in which a Republican or Democrat won the popular vote by over 20 percentage points.
Not only can the left and right shelter themselves ideologically in terms of geography, the fragmentation of media and virtual social networks allows people to maintain their echo chambers. The concept of “alternative facts” became the butt of many jokes over the past year, but alternate narratives and even ideas about reality characterise the partisan left and right. A Pew survey of news sources from 2017 observed more stories with positive tones about Trump’s performance among sources with ⅔ or more of the audience identifying as right-wing. The opposite occurred in outlets with mostly liberal audiences. Unlike extreme partisan polarization, confirmation bias has existed since humans first evolved. Numerous studies into human psychology suggest that people seek out information which supports what they already believe and adopt a “fight or flight” mentality when confronted with threats to their preconceptions. According to polling from during the 2016 election cycle, a plurality of Clinton supporters believed that Social Security would likely remain solvent in the decades to come. In fact, most projections show the system falling into insolvency as the number of retirees outstrips the contributions of workers. The same effect emerged in a plurality of Trump supporters’ false notion that global temperatures have remained the same since the 1980s. With the rise of the internet and increase in the number of outlets, news consumers rarely click on shared articles from outlets that support the opposite perspective. As much as familiarity breeds contempt, unfamiliarity seems to encourage its growth in similar fashion. An Oxford University study finds that Republicans and Democrats believe the other side has more extreme beliefs than it does in reality. “False polarization” — the academic term used for voters’ mistaken perceptions of the degree of ideological differences — contributes to a reluctance to back compromises in Congress. In the context of diverging worldviews, it seems unsurprising that some people assume their opposition operates in bad faith, not that they have considered certain realities that are invisible to an ideologue.
As previously mentioned in this issue brief, mutual resentment manifests in the decline of constructive debate within the political sphere and the public generally. While media and celebrity figures praised the March 24 March for Our Lives as a resurgence of youth civic engagement, some of the rhetoric of the new gun control movement reflects old partisan animosity. March for Our Lives leader David Hogg boasted about declining a call from the president of the United States and regularly speaks on news programs about how NRA members have “blood splattered on their faces” or “blood on their hands.” Even taking into account the immense suffering of school shooting survivors, the poor state of politics is apparent in the fact that supporters of their cause praise an angry, adversarial approach to pushing change. Though calls for elected officials to behave better are commendable, their messaging appeals to trends in opinion, at least among the two parties’ bases. According to an article in The Hill titled “The county that only gave Clinton 5 votes,” Clinton’s 2016 election campaign broke all previous records for amount of negative advertising run against Trump. Her campaign surpassed the also record-breaking 2008 and 2012 Obama campaigns, which relied heavily on negative ads to defeat John McCain and Mitt Romney. The Republican primary saw Trump targeting Ted Cruz’s father as a possible conspirator in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Trump’s other underhanded campaigning tactics, like rewarding violent supporters with validation, are well documented. As a matter of simple practicality, a political player will prioritize the most motivated groups of people in a democracy. Pew’s survey data finds that voters with a “very negative” view of the opposite party vote at up to three times the rate of moderates. Improving the state of politics means changing the culture, starting from the generation poised to inherit it.
College students have an unprecedented chance to meet people of diverse backgrounds — including political ideology — in an educational environment. The concentration of resources within the university at large presents the opportunity for speakers, events and activities to encourage students to confront diversity. On an anecdotal level, most students spend little time grappling with their political differences or politics generally. This state of affairs is understandable, given the complexities of politics and constant distractions of college life. Therefore, the University Park Undergraduate Association should allocate a portion of student fee dollars to a fund devoted to bringing speakers representing positions across the political spectrum. Penn State is fortunate to have political student organizations ranging from the United Socialists to Turning Point USA, but their funds and potential reach are limited by their number of dues paying members. Many of the speaker events hosted by these groups draw a few dozen attendees, most of whom already sympathize with the organizers.