A Manhattan Project for toxic polarization?

Why is such a dangerous problem mostly ignored by our leaders?

In December of 2023, Daniel F. Stone (author of the great book Undue Hate) and I collaborated on an op-ed. It’s below.

The main points in it are that:

• Our leaders should do much more to tackle toxic polarization, and should even consider a large Manhattan-Project-esque initiative.

• Our leaders should be willing to make brave sacrifices to reduce the toxicity of our divides.

For that second point, we’d mentioned the idea that Biden, if he recognized that it might reduce animosity, might decide to not run in 2024. At this point in time, of course, that likely wouldn’t happen, but we think the point still stands: leaders must be willing to see their role in the equation of toxic polarization, even as they may think that their opponents’ perceptions are skewed, distorted, or even quite crazy.

We sent this op-ed to many outlets but had no luck. There’s all sorts of reasons for op-eds to get rejected (it’s obviously a very competitive space, and I think it could have been stronger) but I can’t help but think (from my experiences with this and from what I’ve heard from other people in the depolarization space) that the subject matter plays a role. For the same reasons discussed in this piece about why our leaders ignore the problem of polarization, I believe there is a similar dynamic at work in the media. Depolarization can seem an awkward, naive endeavor to politically passionate people on both sides — and many journalists and editors are politically passionate people. (Even many of the depolarization-aimed pieces I’ve read in mainstream media seem quite biased and unhelpful to me in various ways, but that’s another story.)

I should mention that the Manhattan Project idea is Daniel Stone’s idea, not mine. (When we initially brainstormed this op-ed, my own focus was on the argument for Biden stepping down.) If you want to hear Daniel Stone talking about the Manhattan Project idea, check out this Derate The Hate episode.

Okay here’s the op-ed (we had a significantly shorter version) (I added some more links):

Toxic polarization presents a historic opportunity to Biden and other leaders

By Zachary Elwood and Daniel F. Stone

You might be sick of hearing about polarization in America. But it not only continues to be a major problem — it might be our biggest problem. Political scientist Francis Fukuyama said that polarization is today “the single greatest weakness of the United States.” Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he saw polarization as our “greatest threat.” Experts are concerned about polarization contributing to the erosion of democracy, and some even talk about the possibility of civil war.

You’d think America’s “single greatest weakness” would get the attention of our leaders. And yet top officeholders have essentially made no efforts to reduce toxic polarization. Politicians sometimes give vague lip service to “unifying” America, but concrete action has been basically nonexistent. 

This is disappointing. Actually, that’s putting it far too mildly. It’s absurd. It feels to us like ignoring a comet heading toward Earth — despite having already been hit repeatedly.

So why haven’t our leaders done anything to address America’s “greatest threat”? Well, a politician who says, “We must reduce toxic polarization” is indirectly saying, “I think my party has something to work on.” It’s easy to see why politicians hesitate to do this. When in a conflict, it’s easy for us to think, “The problem isn’t polarization; this the fault of one group.” It’s easy to miss or downplay our or our group’s contributions to the issue. And leaders have incentives to speak in this way even if they don’t genuinely believe it. 

Taking real action to address polarization — including acknowledging one’s own party’s contributions to polarization — would require a lot of political courage. So while it may seem absurd that such a major problem has been largely ignored, it’s not that surprising. 

The upside to this historic inaction is that our current leaders, and President Biden in particular (if he acts fast), have a historic opportunity. A politician taking action on this can show that they’re not a typical politician. They can demonstrate that they’re the leader America needs now: someone willing to put the country’s interests over their own and their party’s — someone willing to take risks that few politicians do. We think that kind of leadership will be lauded in future history books — and possibly rewarded right now by voters, who are in fact quite sick of toxic polarization.

Okay, so what might Biden do to reduce toxic polarization? (We’ll focus on Biden here, as he’s the current president.) We propose that Biden create an initiative aimed at exploring and developing proposals for reducing toxic polarization that many people across the political spectrum would support. 

To evoke a time when America mobilized human and technological resources to tackle a grave threat to the country, Biden might call this initiative the Depolarization Manhattan Project.

One important topic for the Project to tackle would be trying to increase trust in our elections, on both sides. Toxic polarization results in more people taking actions that are perceived as aggressive and undemocratic by the “other side,” and this in turn can lead to significant distrust of elections. Republican distrust of the 2020 election is often discussed, but we should remember that there was widespread distrust of the 2016 election among Democrats — and research shows that that distrust would’ve been even higher in 2020 if Trump had won. We cannot simply ignore these issues and hope they go away.

The Project should also explore proposals for significant structural changes to our political systems, such as proportional representation, “final 5 voting,” and Supreme Court term limits. More unconventional ideas, like sortition, could also be considered. Who knows? Maybe the Project would determine that we need to blow up the system in some way — maybe get rid of the Democratic and Republican parties — and start over. We’d have to see what the Project would come up with.

Another idea might be working with social media companies to find ways to make their platforms less polarizing. 

The Project might also consider how to support citizen- and state-led solutions to divisive issues, like those being worked on by Starts With Us, Disagree Better, Braver Angels, and Unify America. They could explore support for media campaigns aimed at reducing animosity (for example, videos like this one created by Beyond Conflict).

Low-hanging fruit that Biden could easily pursue, absent a formal project, would be to embrace bridge-building in his public speaking. For example, he could give a depolarization-aimed speech in which he talks about the nature of polarization and our distorted views of each other, and acknowledge that there are not just right-wing contributions to our divides but left-wing, too.

Last but not least, Biden and the Project should think about the 2024 election. Trump speaks and acts in especially divisive ways, and we think anyone who sees toxic polarization as a major problem should see him as a major contributor. We also think, like many others (including many conservatives), that Trump poses a unique threat to the stability of America and our democratic institutions. 

However, to maintain credibility across the political spectrum—and help show the Project is not a political stunt motivated by his own electoral concerns—Biden should acknowledge that he is also now a polarizing figure. We think he should be willing to consider withdrawing from the 2024 presidential race, if the Project found that doing so would reduce animosity. 

A good leader should be willing to consider their role in a conflict, even if they think many of the negative views of them are inaccurate, biased, or even entirely unfounded. One especially polarizing issue for Biden is that many Republicans believe the charges against Trump are politically motivated, and directed by Biden for electoral gain. Biden might be able to lessen those suspicions by not running again. 

Unilateral withdrawal for the sake of depolarization would be admirable but perhaps too much to ask. Another option for the Project to consider would be a “bilateral disarmament” proposal: that neither Trump nor Biden run in 2024. (Yes, we know Trump would be unlikely to agree, but such an offer might help show that reducing toxic polarization is the goal, and not political motives.)

Again, we know there are no easy solutions to these problems. Still, America must confront these problems directly. It’s not too late to turn back the growing rift that threatens to tear apart our nation. It’s not too late to avoid the fate of many nations that have been torn apart by similar “us vs them” forces. 

There are understandable reasons why so few people involved in “high conflict” attempt to heal that conflict. Our fear and our anger, however well-founded they may be, can also sometimes serve as obstacles to us avoiding worst-case scenarios resulting from the conflict. There’s immense opportunity here for leaders willing to take the reins on such a huge problem. We shouldn’t let our tribal instincts or fear of failure prevent us from trying to solve our biggest problems. 

We can solve this problem — and even if we come up short it’s damn sure worth a try.

Zachary Elwood is the author of Defusing American Anger: A Guide to Understanding Our Fellow Citizens and Reducing Us-vs-Them Polarization. Daniel F. Stone is the author of Undue Hate: A Behavioral Economic Analysis of Hostile Polarization in US Politics and Beyond.