Political Polarization
BY SOPHIE ZHANG '22
When we were kids, our parents taught us to be kind unconditionally. "Take the high road" and "treat others how you want to be treated," they said. However, in our increasingly polarized culture, let’s just say, “It’s complicated.” On October 9, 2019, Ellen Degeneres was caught laughing with George W. Bush at a football game. The internet became outraged. To many, Bush ran a disastrous administration and disrespected LGBTQ+ rights. Their friendship represented a betrayal of Ellen’s “legacy as a lesbian icon,” Vox Columnist Constance Grady states. However, practicing kindness does not equate to surrendering our values. While refusing cordiality helps maintain a sense of morality, it furthers polarization and prevents compromise. By taking the time to separate the idea from the person and understand where other perspectives come from, we can create an open space for discussion and invoke more effective political change.
The internet asserted that Ellen and Bush, figures with contrasting values, shouldn’t be friends. Online users held that political views simply cannot be separated from personal lives, a mindset that we perpetuate by viewing the world through party lenses and assuming others’ identity based on their affiliation. Basically, we inherently hate each other more than ever. According to a 2019 study by the Pew Research Center, “Today, the level of division and animosity—including negative sentiments among partisans toward the members of the opposing party—has only deepened.” Compared to 2016, a growing number of Republicans and Democrats are giving each other “cold” ratings on a feeling thermometer. Many also claim that members of the other party are “more immoral” and “close-minded” compared to other Americans.
Personal polarization also manifests as a result of the parties’ dwindling common ground. The Pew Research Center states that Americans are unlikely to say they share unpolitical values and goals with people of the opposing party; they often distance themselves to maintain a sense of purity and morality. According to Carrie Menkel-Meadow, a professor of law at the University of California Irvine, we think that “the ‘fault lines’... are clear and must be policed to maintain order.” Polarization is thus furthered by the sense that our political beliefs are objectively and universally moral.
Social media likely exacerbates this divide. With our lives constantly engrossed on Facebook, Google and Instagram, everyone is looking at vastly different facts. We search for information that reinforces our confirmation biases and quickly unfollow people with opposing views. The algorithms also feed us posts and search results that cater to our preconceptions. Further, presenting people with a variety of viewpoints has failed to solve polarization. In reality, the opposing perspectives we see on social media often take an extreme form, triggering a “repulsion” that only strengthens our disgust with people of the other party.
The debate around removing our school mascot exemplifies social media’s polarizing effect. Social media highlights the most divisive opinions, and when some sought to change the mind of another, they framed the posts in a critical manner, which only irritated others even more. Many commenters not only argued against the other’s ideas but also directly addressed the person and delivered personal insults. By linking politics and identity, we are more easily offended and more eager to dig our heels into partisan lines. It’s a vicious cycle where one only gets angrier and increasingly frustrated.
The future seems inevitably dim. If we can never find common ground, nothing gets done. No opinions are shifted or “righted.” In an age of polarization, how can we get the other side to listen to us? We need to create a space that encourages discussion and empathy. When we see the other party as inherently “evil,” we inhibit our ability to connect and understand one another. Instead, we should soften our partisan lines and take off our party lenses. If we continue to push the other side onto a lower moral ground, we won’t have the opportunity to convince them of what we think is right.
However, I agree that there are certain limits--such as racism, homophobia, and sexism--to maintaining an open discussion. We reasonably fear that cordiality would legitimize these ideas. But when we are empathetic, we are being kind to the person, not the opinions they hold. Every person deserves a basic level of respect. We need to separate the politics from the person and stop dehumanizing the other party. As Margaret Renkl states in The New York Times, “Very few people are stupid or irredeemably mean. They’ll listen to what you have to say if they trust you’ll listen to what they have to say back.”
The internet asserted that Ellen and Bush, figures with contrasting values, shouldn’t be friends. Online users held that political views simply cannot be separated from personal lives, a mindset that we perpetuate by viewing the world through party lenses and assuming others’ identity based on their affiliation. Basically, we inherently hate each other more than ever. According to a 2019 study by the Pew Research Center, “Today, the level of division and animosity—including negative sentiments among partisans toward the members of the opposing party—has only deepened.” Compared to 2016, a growing number of Republicans and Democrats are giving each other “cold” ratings on a feeling thermometer. Many also claim that members of the other party are “more immoral” and “close-minded” compared to other Americans.
Personal polarization also manifests as a result of the parties’ dwindling common ground. The Pew Research Center states that Americans are unlikely to say they share unpolitical values and goals with people of the opposing party; they often distance themselves to maintain a sense of purity and morality. According to Carrie Menkel-Meadow, a professor of law at the University of California Irvine, we think that “the ‘fault lines’... are clear and must be policed to maintain order.” Polarization is thus furthered by the sense that our political beliefs are objectively and universally moral.
Social media likely exacerbates this divide. With our lives constantly engrossed on Facebook, Google and Instagram, everyone is looking at vastly different facts. We search for information that reinforces our confirmation biases and quickly unfollow people with opposing views. The algorithms also feed us posts and search results that cater to our preconceptions. Further, presenting people with a variety of viewpoints has failed to solve polarization. In reality, the opposing perspectives we see on social media often take an extreme form, triggering a “repulsion” that only strengthens our disgust with people of the other party.
The debate around removing our school mascot exemplifies social media’s polarizing effect. Social media highlights the most divisive opinions, and when some sought to change the mind of another, they framed the posts in a critical manner, which only irritated others even more. Many commenters not only argued against the other’s ideas but also directly addressed the person and delivered personal insults. By linking politics and identity, we are more easily offended and more eager to dig our heels into partisan lines. It’s a vicious cycle where one only gets angrier and increasingly frustrated.
The future seems inevitably dim. If we can never find common ground, nothing gets done. No opinions are shifted or “righted.” In an age of polarization, how can we get the other side to listen to us? We need to create a space that encourages discussion and empathy. When we see the other party as inherently “evil,” we inhibit our ability to connect and understand one another. Instead, we should soften our partisan lines and take off our party lenses. If we continue to push the other side onto a lower moral ground, we won’t have the opportunity to convince them of what we think is right.
However, I agree that there are certain limits--such as racism, homophobia, and sexism--to maintaining an open discussion. We reasonably fear that cordiality would legitimize these ideas. But when we are empathetic, we are being kind to the person, not the opinions they hold. Every person deserves a basic level of respect. We need to separate the politics from the person and stop dehumanizing the other party. As Margaret Renkl states in The New York Times, “Very few people are stupid or irredeemably mean. They’ll listen to what you have to say if they trust you’ll listen to what they have to say back.”
