How political contempt helps blow up deals and amplifies gridlock

Toxic polarization and the death of the border security deal

This will be another op-ed I wrote and failed to get placed. Although for this one I sent it to only five places then gave up. One reason I gave up is because I don’t think it’s that strong and I don’t have the time to polish it more. Another reason is just because I think depolarization-aimed content is generally disliked. Another reason is that the failed border security deal slips becomes less and less interesting news.

In this one, I was trying to capture two things I think we should focus on more, as a society:

• The role of contempt in pushing us away from each other’s beliefs and ideas — basically that if we think our “enemies” like something, we’ll be predisposed to not like it. If our “enemies” care about something, we’ll have an instinct to not care about it.

• The systemic aspects of American government that disincentivize Republicans and Democrats to collaborate. Political operators, for understandable reasons, don’t want to help, or be perceived to help, their “enemies.”

These are not original ideas, of course, but it’s just that I think we should talk about them more. The more these factors are understood by more people, the more we’ll understand the various factors affecting us — within us and around us — and the better position we’ll be in to transcend those forces. These forces will manifest as instincts — and our instincts drive us further into polarization and chaos.

One reason people don’t like examining these ideas is because it can seem like making excuses for people’s behaviors. People can think that I’m saying, “Don’t judge these people who won’t collaborate or compromise; there are reasons for what they do.”

But that’s not what I’m saying. The way we encourage people to do better, to take more social, collaborative, and depolarizing approaches, is by helping them see the forces acting on them. And seeing how these forces act on our political opponents helps us make more persuasive cases to them for why they should behave in better ways. All the polarization ideas I discuss I see as valuable tools for anyone to use in service of achieving political goals, of whatever sort.

I think another reason some people don’t like examining these ideas is that it can feel naive: it can seem like one is making the case that cynicism and deception and manipulation aren’t major factors in our politics. But no, that’s also not the argument. Clearly those things are present, too. But we also have to see how we can help make those bad approaches more or less common by the approaches we take. And seeing all the various factors at work helps us take more depolarizing, animosity-reducing approaches.

Okay here’s the op-ed.

How political contempt amplifies gridlock and blows up deals

The problem of toxic polarization in America is a problem not of opposing beliefs on issues but one of excessive contempt and fear. Many of us have overly dark and pessimistic views of our political opponents — and this leads to a dangerous and destabilizing feedback loop of animosity. To reduce the toxicity of our divides, America must work on correcting our distorted views, thereby reducing contempt and fear and improving politics and society. 

At least, that’s how I and many others think of this problem. But it can be hard to see the role that these negative feelings play in the everyday chaos of our politics. 

Let’s take the case of the recent bipartisan border security deal defeated by Republicans. To many, this was a case of Republican leaders prioritizing political gamesmanship over compromise and solutions — as demonstrated by the several instances of Republicans talking about how the deal would help Biden. Those who opposed the bill believed the bill was weak, and argued Biden could take action on the border without a deal if he really wanted to. 

People on both sides of this debate may be skeptical that our political dysfunction is a problem of contempt. Can’t this gridlock (and other gridlock) be explained by major disagreement on issues? Or alternatively, couldn’t it also be explained by cynical but non-contemptuous political maneuvering? 

Yes, it’s true that gridlock and political obstruction can occur in the absence of contempt. But it’s also true that contempt makes such things much more likely. Contempt can shift our beliefs, making us more extreme and less willing to compromise. And contempt amplifies the chaos and dysfunction with which these conflicts play out. 

When we’re in conflict, we feel an urge to oppose the “bad guys.” In this way, our emotions can shift our beliefs. One likely example of this dynamic was the significant upswing in Democrats’ pro-immigration stances after Trump’s election. Democrats perceived Trump as being cruel to immigrants, in word and deed, and it’s easy to see how that would lead them to be more supportive of and protective of immigrants. 

When we have distorted, overly pessimistic views of the “other side” — when we see them as depraved and dangerous — more and more issues will seem to us major moral issues. And when an issue is moralized, we’re less likely to compromise. 

Such dynamics help explain the contempt found on the immigration issue. Searching Twitter for “immigration” and “evil” brings up many examples of people dehumanizing the “other side” for their stances on immigration. And such emotions can be found in the extreme rhetoric used about this border security deal. A conservative interviewed on Fox News called the deal “disgusting.” Trump called the deal a “betrayal” of America. Republican Senator Lankford said a conservative media personality told him that he’d try to destroy Lankford for his work on such a bill during an election year. 

When we’re in conflict, we’ll tend to view our opponents’ concerns as unserious, or as having malicious motivations. This helps explain why most Democrats see Republican stances on immigration as motivated by racism, despite such stances clearly not requiring racism. And it helps explain what political analyst Ruy Teixeira calls the Fox News fallacy: the tendency for Democrats to believe that, if Republicans are critical of something they’re doing, it must not be a valid concern. 

And it of course helps explain pessimistic Republican-side views, like thinking that Democrats’ pro-immigration stances are mainly motivated by gaining voters and winning elections.  

Our political contempt serves to diverge our narratives. It widens the emotional chasm between us — and our beliefs come along for the ride. 

Besides emotional factors, there are systemic elements at work. As the political thinker Juan Linz pointed out: our presidential form of government seems inherently polarizing: it frequently results in a situation where a president and congress are in conflict. In such a system, collaborating and compromising with your political opponents can seem like helping “the bad guys.” And this feeling will be especially salient during election years. 

Our political animosity and contempt will mean that compromise can leave a bad taste in our mouth. It can make us feel like maybe we’re being suckers. To build a healthier political cultulre, we need more people to see the value of compromise. We need more people to see that making incremental progress on things they care about is better than making no progress at all. Instead of thinking only about the deal in front of us, we must see the act of compromise as part of a long-term journey. Even if we feel we’re getting the short end of the stick in one compromise, we may later get other things we want. 

And we need more people to see and talk about the factors that amplify our divides: factors that are both within us and around us. For one thing, we must see the role of contempt in amplifying gridlock — and we must see how that contempt is built in large part on false and distorted views of one another. With a lessening of contempt, there will also be a lessening of extreme, non-negotiable thinking, and we’ll find a lot more room for compromise. 

Zachary Elwood is the author of Defusing American Anger.

Eric Gay, AP News