Making Politics Less Personal
Recently, Thomas Edsall wrote an interesting essay in the New York Times covering work done by various academics, including Jonathan Haidt, who is one of the founders of Civil Politics. In this article, Edsall suggests that:
The work of Iyengar, Talhelm and Haidt adds a new layer to the study of polarization. In seminal work, scholars like Nolan McCarty, Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, political scientists at Princeton, Yale and Berkeley, respectively, have stressed the key role of external factors in deepening our political schism, including inequality, the nationalization of politics, immigration and the fast approaching moment when whites will no longer be in the majority.
There are many factors that contribute to polarization and certainly these political factors are part of the equation. Yet the intuitionist view that we have found evidence for at Civil Politics, suggests that the reasons we see increasing personal polarization is less a result of political or economic factors and more at the level of the personal. Indeed, such vitriol is not just found in politics, but also in completely artificial settings like sports. These political factors can all be boiled down to a single personal factor, that also exists in the sports realm: group competition. Given this, our view would be more in line with what Iyengar suggested to Edsall in the article:
In an email exchange, Iyengar speculated on a number of reasons for the increase in polarization:
Residential neighborhoods are politically homogeneous as are social media networks. I suspect this is one of the principal reasons for the significantly increased rate of same-party marriages. In 1965, a national survey of married couples showed around sixty-five percent agreement among couples. By 2010, the agreement rate was near 90 percent.
The result, according to Iyengar, is that “since inter-personal contact across the party divide is infrequent, it is easier for people to buy into the caricatures and stereotypes of the out party and its supporters.”
Competition, whether for racial equality or the NFL championship, is going to lead to personal negative feelings and without the balancing factor of other positive personal relations, you get the kind of intense dislike described in the article. In that way, politics is a sport just like any other.
– Ravi Iyer
StephenCataldo 8 years ago
Another way to look at it is that politics isn’t personal enough: if my conservativeliberal friend refuses listen to the words I’m saying, it would be normal to say “You MSNBCFox-watchers are all a bunch of idiots who never listen to the other side.” Sometimes the advice about civility is to avoid anger, which is hard advice. What do you think about this idea for promoting civility: avoid getting angry at someone’s team, but do demand the same personal respect you normally would. Keep conversations personal — about you and the person you’re talking to, not blaming the team they are on for whether they treat you with respect, not blaming them or accepting blame from them for things done by other people.