Republicans and Democrats play a role in making each other more extreme

Contempt and aggression can induce the stances and behaviors that anger us

I had an op-ed published in The Fulcrum with the title “We play a role in our political opponents growing more extreme.” You can read that here: www.thefulcrum.us/divided-us-politics.

I don’t think that piece is as persuasive as it could be; I find it a hard thing to write about, honestly. But the difficulty of talking about the idea is I think tied to its importance, and also to why it’s not as examined as it should be. Many people write about how we can radicalize each other when in conflict; but this is seldom applied to the specific issues that make up the bulk of our political divides. The more specific you get about how that dynamic might apply to the issues and stances around us — the more granular you get — the more chance you have of upsetting people who have those stances.

The difficulty of discussing this is I think related to the broader problem of why it’s so hard to overcome conflict. We generally, as people, don’t want to examine how we might be contributing to the things that anger us so much. Doing that feels wrong; it can be angering.

In my books and writing, the main idea I focus on is that the way in which we interact with our opponents can change their beliefs and behavior — that our contempt and animosity can help create the very stances and behaviors that bother us. This is not an intuitive idea: many view their “enemies” as being largely ideological, as having certain, concrete goals that they’re trying to accomplish. This view of things lends itself to a stance like “It doesn’t matter how we treat them; they are the way they are; they think the things they think.” It lends itself to a view where emotions are subtracted from the equation of conflict.

Just as we tend to think “we believe the right things, and our negative emotions and fears and animosity don’t much affect our beliefs about what’s right,” we also tend to apply that to our adversaries; we view them as being motivated by specific ideas and goals and not by things like humiliation and feeling threatened by “us.” For a specific example: when sharing the idea that insulting, condescending rhetoric on the left can play a role in some Trump support, I’ve received some very angry responses. There can be a reaction like, “They’re just saying that; they just believe bad things; don’t fall for that.” And, similarly, pro-Trump people can scoff at the idea that Trump’s aggressive approach plays a role in affecting liberal-side stances and approaches; “No, they are just very ideological and want to institute far-left, neo-Marxist ideas” a typical response might go.

When you don’t see how powerful a force emotion and tribalism is in such things, it can lead you to not care that much about your own or your allies’ contemptuous, insulting approaches — after all, our “enemies” believe what they believe; it’s just a matter of fighting against their bad ideas.

But when you see the role of emotion in these areas, and see how closely intertwined the groups in conflict are — when you see how actions and approaches by one group can actually result in shifting the other group’s beliefs and stances — you’re in a better position to care about how you treat and approach the “other side.” You’re in a better position to see that you should care about such things for the sake of your own values and goals and wishes.

Here’s that op-ed again: https://thefulcrum.us/divided-us-politics. If you like it, consider sharing it. Thanks.

Related resources and writings:

• Post of mine compiling ways that aggressive, insulting approaches can backfire

• A great book I recommend to people who want a more engaging, fictionalized way to consume ideas about conflict: The Anatomy of Peace. That book talks about the ways in which our high-contempt approaches can induce the very behaviors that upset us, in a self-fulfilling-prophecy way. They talk about how this applies to interpersonal relationships as well as large, violent conflicts (like Israel/Palestine).

• Lee Drutman’s writing about the “doom loop”

• Jon Haidt and Greg Lukianoff examine the “polarization spiral,” where the far left and far right can be seen as radicalizing each other