As I write this, reports indicate that moderate Republicans (Susan Collins) and Democrats (Joe Manchin) appear to be spearheading bipartisan talks to avoid the economic consequences of a debt default and also end the partial government shutdown.  This is in marked contrast to partisans on the left who are willing to endure some economic hardship to regain political power and partisans on the right who are willing to endure some economic hardship to achieve policy goals.

Strong partisans tend to have strong moral convictions, which can certainly lead to pro-social behavior in many cases.  One principle of practicing political civility is to try to accept the genuine good intentions of others, and I have little doubt that those on the left and right have good intentions for the country.  Yet psychological research on moral conviction shows how it is precisely those individuals with the strongest moral desires who are often willing to overlook the consequences of their actions (e.g. shutting down the government and threatening to breach the debt ceiling) in service of their goals.  

This review paper by Linda Skitka and Elizabeth Mullen provides a nice overview of this research:  

Although moral mandates may sometimes lead people to
engage in prosocial behaviors, they can also lead people to disregard procedural safeguards. This article briefly reviews research that indicates that people become very unconcerned with how moral mandates are achieved, so long as they are achieved. In short, we find that commitments to procedural safeguards that generally protect civil society become psychologically eroded when people are pursuing a morally mandated end. Understanding the “dark side” of moral conviction may provide some insight into the motivational underpinnings of engaging in extreme acts like terrorism, as well as people’s willingness to forego civil liberties in their pursuit of those who do.

 

It is precisely for these reasons that partisan gerrymandering, which makes politicians accountable to the extremes who vote in primaries as opposed to moderates, threatens to lead to more future crises.  If moderates like Olympia Snowe leave and their influence is replaced by hardliners like Ted Cruz, we are all bound to suffer the consequences of their moral conviction.

– Ravi Iyer

Given the attention that Hillary Clinton is getting from the press, it is worth noting her prescription for reducing partisan gridlock dovetails well with research on how superordinate/shared goals leads to cooperation and common ground.

When asked for her prescription for partisan gridlock, Clinton sees an opportunity not unlike what Obama saw in 2008. ­“People are stereotypes, they are caricaturized,” says Clinton. “It comes from both sides of the political aisle, it comes from the press. It’s all about conflict, it’s all about personality, and there are huge stakes in the policies that are being debated, and I think there’s a hunger amongst a very significant, maybe even a critical mass of Americans, clustered on the left, right, and center, to have an adult conversation about how we’re going to solve these problems … but it’s not for the fainthearted.” For now, Hillary’s strategy is to sail above these conflicts, mostly by saying nothing to inflame them. “I have a lot of reason to believe, as we saw in the 2012 election, most Americans don’t agree with the extremists on any side of an issue,” says Clinton, “but there needs to continue to be an effort to find common ground, or even take it to higher ground on behalf of the future.”

Of course, diagnosing the issue and actually solving it are two very different things as we haven't seen a reduction in partisanship during Obama's presidency, so somehow her prescription may have to change if we are to expect a different outcome from a hypothetical Clinton presidency.  Chris Christie has a similar view of the importance of "getting things done" over partisanship, and also has a track record of transcending gridlock as governor of New Jersey.  In coming months, we will try to highlight quotes concerning overcoming gridlock from all potential 2016 candidates, especially as they relate to psychological research on incivility.

– Ravi Iyer

Years of research in social psychology and a read of human history tell us that one way to combat incivility in politics is to focus on shared goals.  Democrats and republicans can agree about rewarding people who build businesses and not rewarding patent trolls.  Given that, this is certainly an area where cooperation over shared objectives, as opposed to competition, can breed civility.

From this Politico article: 

But just as Democrats and Republicans came together to pass the 2011 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which brought the most comprehensive change to our nation’s patent laws in 60 years, we again are working in a collaborative, bipartisan way. Our legislation will make it harder for bad actors to succeed, while preserving what has made America’s patent system great.
 

We can only hope that in other areas such as reducing the deficit, improving our nation’s healthcare, improving the economy, and promoting peace, we can also focus on our shared goals, as opposed to our conflicts.

– Ravi Iyer