Transcript
This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors and omissions.
Thomas Zimmer: [00:00:00] It’s precisely the fact that it obscures rather than illuminates the actual problem. What makes it attractive politically? Mainstream journalists, for instance, are drawn to this polarization framework because it allows them to say that things are bad, which they, they want to say that they’re not like, you know, they don’t want to pretend nothing, there’s no problems.
They want to say things are bad. But they also want to remain non partisan and neutral, or whatever they call that. And so, since that is defined as keeping equidistance from either side, right, they just, just say polarization and boom. Same in academia. I mean, we’re the same, right? Um, I’m not saying we’re any better than that.
Um, and so. I think the polarization concept is useful if you want to lament major problems in American politics, but you either don’t see or more often, you simply can’t bring yourself to address the fact that the major threat to American democracy is a radicalizing right.
David: That’s Thomas Zimmer, a political writer and visiting professor at Georgetown University.
In this episode, we’re breaking from our usual [00:01:00] format in order to address some of your concerns and mine about the topic of polarization, exploring its nuances and complexities. being explicit about where we’re coming from on this show and inviting you to join the conversation.
Thomas Zimmer: Calling it polarization, it has a sort of a both sides kind of quality to it, right?
And that narrative completely obscures the fact that on the central issue that is at the core of the political conflict, which is democracy, right? And, and whether or not this country should, should even be certainly a multiracial pluralistic democracy on that central issue. I mean, there’s just now no equivalent to what’s been happening.
on the right and, and in the Republican party. I mean, one party wants to overthrow democracy because they consider it a threat to traditional hierarchies and their vision of what real America is. And Democrats don’t.
David: This comes from an episode of the, is this democracy podcast titled polarization is not the problem.
It obscures the problem.
Thomas Zimmer: Once the [00:02:00] polarization concept is adopted as sort of an overarching diagnosis, right. As a sort of a governing paradigm. I think we all have, we all feel that it obscures rather than it illuminates the actual problems and it transports a misleading idea of what’s actually up in America and what the actual threat to democracy is.
David: Now, I want to say right away that there are a lot of generalizations in what you just heard. I think the great irony of this particular Is This Democracy episode about how polarization is not the problem itself has elements verging on outrage porn. It does have some interesting facts and valid points about the right, but it also makes some sweeping generalizations and uses a lot of highly charged language, presenting issues with an us versus them dynamic.
All of which feed the very division and hate that it’s asking us not to talk about. All that said, the reason why we’re looking at this is because it speaks to some of the concerns that I had about this show during its conceptualization, as well as some feedback I’ve heard from listeners. I got a chance to speak with one of the researchers whose work [00:03:00] inspired this particular Is This Democracy podcast episode.
Shannon McGregor: Hi, I’m Shannon McGregor. I’m an associate professor, uh, at the University of North Carolina in the Hussman School of Journalism and Media. Uh, and I’m also a principal investigator with UNC Center for Information Technology and Public Life.
David: When it comes to polarization, it’s not the only thing we talk about on this podcast, but it does come up, particularly affective polarization.
We have referred to this term a lot on this podcast, but if you’re new or need a refresher, here’s Liliana Mason describing affective polarization.
Lilliana Mason: So now we don’t just hate people in the other party because we disagree on the marginal tax rate. We hate them because they are different from us in so many ways.
And that’s social, that’s affective, that’s cultural, that’s all right, that we’re, they are different from us in all these ways. And we feel that really viscerally. It’s not just that we disagree, that we feel really like those people are not like me. And we shouldn’t even be necessarily, you know, in the same country, right?
This is, they shouldn’t count as Americans as much as my people count as Americans. [00:04:00] Ultimately, what you do then is if you have, let’s say, for example, racial identities connected to your partisan identity, you’re going into the voting booth and you’re actually voting, not just on which party you think is best, but which racial group you think is best, which is a terrible idea.
We should not be voting who gets, you know, who’s the best racial group in our country. That’s, that is a recipe for. Disaster if not genocide. So like that’s a that’s a very bad way to do politics, but it does explain how we are currently doing politics
David: Regarding the claim that the real problem is a radicalizing right?
I think that’s just as flawed as claiming that polarization is the sole or main problem Which is not something we intend to do on this show By the way, both are over simplistic views to that point. I asked mcgregor if i’m part of the problem.
Shannon McGregor: I mean I think the short answer is no, right.
I don’t think, yeah, I think, you know, what my colleague, Daniel, Chris and I, who wrote the piece that sort of motivated that conversation on the podcast that you mentioned earlier, um, the point that we were [00:05:00] trying to make and what we’ve been thinking about is not that polarization.
Isn’t a problem and in some cases, you know, shouldn’t be the very thing maybe perhaps we are focusing on far too often it obscures what we see as the real problem, which is the you know extremity and Yeah, I guess the extremity Of the political right. At least in this country right now. And I think we see, see that same thing in a lot of other countries around the world, um, that the political right.
Going very far to the right. Um, and, and when we talk about it as polarization instead, you know, we get this visual of two polls, right? Um, and when we talk about solving polarization, I think the sort of natural heuristic is like that. Both, that like to solve it, both sides should just keep moving until.
we’re in a place where they aren’t, you know, nearly as far apart. Um, but if we’re sort of centering questions of, uh, democratic ideals in terms of [00:06:00] equity, equality, things like that, then I don’t think both sides and moving to the center is what’s going to get us there. And so then that shouldn’t be the, how we frame the problem in a lot of cases.
David: It’s important to recognize that the challenges facing American democracy today are multifaceted and cannot be attributed solely to one party or one ideology. At the same time, we must acknowledge that there are unique dynamics within the Republican Party that have raised concerns about the preservation of democratic norms.
Here’s political scientist Kevin Smith.
Kevin Smith: Yeah, I mean, I don’t think we want to be Pollyannish about some of the dangers about the political divides here. I mean, you know, the, you know, the January six. Riots were that was a serious thing. I mean, Congress was engaged in certifying an election and a mob basically, you know, took over that took over the capital.
I don’t think you need to minimize that. But I also don’t think that it’s particularly helpful in terms of moving [00:07:00] to any corrective by using pejorative language. Um, and sort of like, You know, painting out a set of people and saying they are the problem and if we could just, you know, take this group of people by the scruff of the necks and shake them the right philosophical way, um, our problems would be solved.
I mean, I just think that’s. A, it’s unrealistic. And b, I think it’s, it, it’s too simplistic. Uh, you know, unfortunately the world is a multivariate and, and, and complicated place and you know, some people, um, yeah, I mean there are some people on the reactionary, right? There is such a thing as a reactionary, right, that are contemplating things that would cross most people’s red lines.
Um, you know, there’s also a lot of conservatives. Who have principled, legitimate reasons for being upset [00:08:00] about certain directions in the country and are not shy about voicing those opinions. And lumping one in with the other, um, you know, especially if you’re using pejorative language, I, I don’t think that helps build any bridges whatsoever.
David: That brings me to something else I’m always mindful about on this show, which is not falling into both sides fallacies. I spoke with McGregor about this.
David: Yeah, I struggle with that kind of idea on the show a lot of sort of like dealing with sort of the confronting head on sort of the both sides ism kind of kind of thing.
Right. I generally the podcast is more meta and I generally don’t really take. Positions on issues is more meta kind of about how we talk about these issues and stuff like that. But I mean, there’s times when you kind of have to take a position, you know, and that also, even in doing this, that, um, there’s, as you say, the sort of the weight, um, you know, the 2, there, there may be similarities in terms of sort of the animosity, but they’re not exactly, they can’t be [00:09:00] equated, uh, in the same degree, uh, and, and that’s a tough one to, that’s a tough one to deal with as well.
Shannon McGregor: Yeah, I think so. And I think, you know, that was one of the main motivations that we had for writing this piece. Um, and thinking about this was that there seemed to be very little in most of the, especially like academic work around this consideration of the issues and of the analysis of like power, you know, in some of these situations.
Um, and I think that especially when we’re talking about this in the space of politics to talk about it in that vacuum always, right, without thinking about the actual, like, outcomes and issues, um, can be really problematic and I think a lot of the work that we were trying to understand that didn’t do that, um, it’s just like one of the, you know, sort of problems that we were seeing, um, that we thought, you know, [00:10:00] Hopefully could be thought about a little bit more deeply in some cases.
David: One of the common calls to action we hear on this show for lowering the temperature are things like civil dialogue.
Shannon McGregor: Sometimes that feels inadequate because then when you come to that you get these solutions like well If we could just have people across the political aisle speak to one another. Um Then we’ll be fine because then people maybe would move to the center.
I find that idea frankly like morally bankrupt Um, i’m not gonna ask someone, you know It’s your job dear, uh trans person to speak to someone who would deny your existence and deny your right to live in this country. But if you just talk to them, then maybe we can come closer to the pole, right? Because that, you know, without defining the center of what groups should move towards, then you just suggest that they should move towards one another.
And that has no normative democratic basis.
David: I very much agree with [00:11:00] this, and it’s another point I want to make. First, on this show, we’re not putting some kind of centrist position on a pedestal as a goal to strive for. We’re certainly not suggesting everyone should move to the center.
Kevin Smith: You know, uh, two of my favorite students over the past decade of my teaching, um, one was a very conservative, Christian conservative Republican, and one was, you know, about three steps away from a socialist woman to work for the ACLU, um, uh, after she graduated.
And the reason why they were two of my favorite students is they were genuinely curious about why people thought differently. From them, and they were not judgmental about, you know, students in the class who had very, very different opinions from them. And I loved having them in class because, you know, all you need is a couple of people like that in a room.
Effectively, grown ups in the room. Um, even if they have very strong political views from one end of the [00:12:00] spectrum or the other is, it’s amazing how much reasonableness can break out. I mean, like moderation of language, moderation in your, uh, you know, your emotional opposition to the people that you disagree with.
I mean, I think you can be, the two students that I was just referring to, they were nobody’s ideas of centrists. Absolutely, absolutely not.
David: Also, even though we promote things like civil dialogue, we need to be realistic that it can’t solve all our problems.
Shannon McGregor: The idea that if people could speak to one another, things would be better, like, on a small scale, yes.
Right? Like, yes. Like, you could be, you know, better in your community or your workplace. Right? Like, maybe those really hard conversations could promote more social cohesions at this very low level, and that might, you know, move us. Further away from polarization and maybe even more towards democracy by understanding the human and civil rights of people who are different than [00:13:00] you.
But there’s no incentive for elites to engage in that at all. And so in some ways, I think it’s a fool’s errand to try and convince the public that it’s their problem to solve. When all of the conversations in the world across the sort of aisle at a diner table are incentivize
David: While I agree here that there is very little incentive today for elites to engage in civil discourse or for attempting to understand their political adversaries, I do put that on us to a degree.
We like when they attack the other side. We encourage it. We vote for those that engage in that behavior on the left and the right. So what do we expect? To say it’s all our fault is wrong, but to say we have no responsibility here is also wrong. Here’s Shannon McGregor again regarding disagreeing better.
Shannon McGregor: Yeah, and I think, you know, that’s one of the things that I think is really important, [00:14:00] but one of the things that I actually think the polarization lens on this obscures, right, which is the fact that, you know, without a doubt, democracy works when people can disagree better when they can have, you know, discussions about the implications of different policies or issues and then be able to work.
Take that to, you know, the ballot box or take it to the floor of Congress, right? Or whatever the sort of mechanism is in any particular case, um, but right now we have a large share of, of, of the Republican party, both at the elected level, but also at the, you know, level of like the populace, right? Of people who.
are not playing by those rules, that are not accepting, you know, the political outcome of defeats, um, that are, you know, not accepting at all the, uh, not even the views of, of people, you know, who might disagree with [00:15:00] them, but sort of the premise for doing so at all. And I think that It’s a real crisis, right, that we have in our, in our democracy right now is that, you know, it doesn’t seem as if we’re all playing by the same rules, and that’s sort of the foundational premise of all of this, right, is that we agree with the system, and we’re going to work within the bounds of it, right, to try and advance our own agendas or whatever it is that we care about, um, and that’s like not really where we are right now, and that’s what I think is really worrisome, and that I’m not sure the polarization lens accurately describes.
David: For the purposes of clearing up legitimate concerns about our show, I want to spell it out here. First, we are not saying that polarization is the single overarching diagnosis to our problems. I accept that the concept of polarization has its limitations in capturing the complexities of the current political landscape.
And it is true that the term polarization can [00:16:00] sometimes imply a false equivalence between the two major political parties, obscuring the significant differences in their approaches and goals. However, it is important to recognize that the challenges facing American democracy today are multifaceted and cannot be attributed to any one thing alone.
Likewise, we aren’t suggesting one must give up their principles and come to a center position on all issues. While we may fiercely defend our principles, that doesn’t mean we have to demonize opposing viewpoints. There’s space for unwavering beliefs and unwavering respect, for red lines drawn with understanding instead of animosity.
There’s, of course, even a place for outrage. Here’s neuroscientist Kurt Gray.
Kurt Gray: There are cases where it is, you know, really good. Um, so if there’s a company that is polluting something, I’m thinking like Erin Brockovich, right? And everyone gets together and gets angry or the, the sex scandal in the Catholic Church, right?
Lots of people were really upset and pushed for kind of systemic change [00:17:00] as much as they could. So outrage could be a tool for good, um, and, and for social change. But of course. It can also be right. You can get an overload of it as well, right? Too much outrage kind of poison conversations makes us further upset.
Just everyone’s kind of screaming all the time. And so I think it’s a good tool for coordination. But sometimes when when it’s not useful, then just bathing and social or moral outrage can, you know, make us upset. eventually make us physically ill. You know, we know that stress does all sorts of bad things to us when we’re chronically exposed to it.
So in the long run, I think it’d be bad news.
David: When it comes to fostering dialogue and collaboration and promoting civic education and engagement, I appreciate that it only goes so far and cannot solve all our problems alone. On the other hand, it is crucial to foster a more inclusive and constructive political environment that transcends partisan divides.
Lowering the temperature can also help us [00:18:00] individually a great deal. It helps make us more critical thinkers, and therefore better citizens. And it improves our mental health. And in so doing, we can better focus our outrage into effective action. Finally, efforts to strengthen democratic institutions and safeguard the rule of law are essential.
In addition to promoting a culture of civic engagement, this could involve implementing comprehensive campaign finance reform, rank choice voting, lobbying reform, and strengthening whistleblower protections. I spoke with McGregor about another important problem, trust in institutions.
Shannon McGregor: Yeah, I mean, you know, trust in institutions, the government, journalism, science and academia, doctors, right?
Everything has been on a decline, you know, across the political spectrum in terms of the public, you know, for quite some time. Um, but I think that, you know, part of the ramping that we’ve seen recently is Um, really tied into, um, [00:19:00] the sort of populist playbook that I think a lot of politicians, uh, mostly on the right, but I would say not only on the right, uh, have, have been using to their advantage, right, which is this idea that you can’t trust.
Big government or big media, right? Or all these other things, all these other institutions that we’re talking about in this conversation, but you can trust me, right? Like, I have the answer, right? And it’s this very sort of populist rhetoric and, you know, people are People are buying into that because things are hard and things are confusing and it does seem to be a much nicer and easier answer that I can just believe someone who tells me that they’re going to be able to fix it rather than go through the messy complicated process of like Voting, right?
Like voting for people or like dealing with the uncertainty that we have around some health and science things, right? Um, all that can be messy and [00:20:00] complicated and easy answers that people, you know, leaders who are in the sort of populist mold give can be much more appealing and, and it benefits them to tell that story, right?
For, for someone in that vein to say, don’t trust the institutions, trust me, give me your power. Even though I’m running to be a part of some institutional body, by the way, right? Like Congress or the presidency or the state legislature.
David: As we look to close out this episode, once again, we’re left with more questions than answers.
Perhaps that’s as it should be. When it comes to the discourse surrounding American democracy, there are no easy solutions, no definitive narratives. Our role at this show isn’t to provide all the answers, but to illuminate the questions and to offer a platform for diverse voices. It’s about sparking critical thinking, igniting a fire of informed discussions, and empowering you to take action.
Go forth armed with these nuanced perspectives and engage in dialogue with your neighbors, your family, your community. Be critical of those on your own side. If a story or a tweet feels good, [00:21:00] it makes you feel morally superior, that’s a good indication that maybe you’re not getting the whole story. Maybe take a step back.
If you find a source that is often giving you an oversimplified version of a story or pumping out feel good spins on rumors that seldom pan out, you don’t have to call them out, but maybe consider finding better sources, or keeping that in mind when you consume their content. In other words, inoculate yourself a little to their rage porn reporting tendencies.
Let’s give Shannon McGregor the last word.
Shannon McGregor: I don’t have all the answers for how to get that information to the folks who I think need it. But I do think one of the important things that I feel like I’ve learned both through my own research and other people’s research, you know, in this area in the last.
Decade or so is that like, it’s not about truth. It’s not about the truth. I mean, I care. I’m not saying we shouldn’t care about truth, but like reiterating that something is true or fact checking things. It’s [00:22:00] important. We have to do it, but that’s not what these beliefs are about. You know, that’s not what these attitudes are about.
They’re about. Identity, they’re about power, you know, and they’re about belonging and until we can really integrate that into how we think about these things, I don’t think we’re going to be able to solve this.