Warlike "one side will win" framings of our divides
On Alito's recent controversial statement, and similar framings on the left
I wrote an op-ed about Justice Alito’s “one side will win” statement, and similar statements and framings on the left and right. I didn’t succeed in getting it in a bigger outlet but did get it in The Fulcrum. (I also got interest from Deseret News, which has been publishing some good polarization pieces lately, but I’d already said yes to Fulcrum so just went with that.)
Some further thoughts on this below — including some thoughts on the illusory nature of the left-right spectrum concept, and how that may be amplifying divides.
We’re prone to over-reacting to one-off statements
One note about this: I personally think that Alito’s comments weren’t obviously extreme or concerning. One reader wrote me to say that there were other ways to view Alito’s statements, and I agree. But I do find sometimes it’s hard to work such nuance into a short op-ed without weakening it; in this case I avoided giving my thoughts on Alito’s statement and simply said that “many people saw this as evidence of his political bias” — and also linked to an article that included one defense of Alito.
One aspect here was that Alito’s remarks were off-the-cuff: it’s possible to imagine he was talking about some issues, and not all issues. To get granular: when he said “On one side or the other — one side or the other is going to win,” it’s possible that was a mis-speaking. His “on one side or the other” sounds like he could have meant to say “On one issue or another” because “On one side or the other” as a start doesn’t make much sense.
In general, I think it’s good to avoid freaking out about one-off statements, as people can speak in sloppy, loose ways — and that’s especially true for privately made statements like this one.
In some cases, there can also be an element of, “I think this person is unreasonable and I want to get out of this conversation quickly so I’ll say something to get rid of them.” (That is a factor in some of Project Veritas’ overhyped “gotcha” audio/video clips where people seem to be admitting to outlandish things.) Not to say I think it was definitely a factor here, just saying it can be a factor sometimes.
As some have also argued, his statements could be seen as an observation about our extreme polarization, not about his own views about what’s right. In a piece referring to his statements as “anodyne,” Ann Althouse writes, “He just responds to the instigator Windsor by observing that ideologues are not compromisers.”
Also, even assuming the worst about his statements, presumably many liberal people would be relatively unbothered by the progressive columnist Perry Bacon embracing a “one side will win” narrative; that might help them see how conservatives can see things similarly. Obviously this is leaving aside that he’s a justice who should avoid expressing bias, but just referring to the outrage that a conservative would think such a thing: clearly many people around us think such things — and that’s the problem.
There are just many ways people can end up saying things that don’t really capture what they really think. I think in general polarization/conflict makes us prone to over-reaction, which in turn induces over-reactions from the “other side” and so on. For example, Perry Bacon’s much more explicit and whole-hearted embrace of a “one side will win” framing can be seen as an over-reaction — and one that amplifies divides further. This is why it’s good to avoid jumping to conclusions, as we’ll often find our biases and fears influence us jump to far more pessimistic conclusions than we should.
(An excerpt from my book on overly pessimistic responses to things Trump has said, and how that adds to our divides.)
The illusions of left versus right
I’ve been reading the Lewis brothers’ book The Myth of Left and Right: How the Political Spectrum Misleads and Harms America, which led to me working in some of those ideas into this op-ed. I’ve come to think that this book is perhaps the most important book on polarization, in terms of helping us see illogical aspects of the “left versus right” framing of politics. This framing is so fundamental to how we talk about politics, and its faultiness and illusory nature can be seen as a key contributor to our divides. It’s as if our entire political framework is built on a false foundation and, more importantly, a polarizing foundation. Seeing our society through Manichaean, conflict-colored glasses can create a self-fulfilling prophecy of high conflict, and the left-versus-right framing helps create that conflict-oriented filter.
I recently updated my list of recommended books on polarization and moved that one up. I highly recommend it. I think that even if you disagree with some of their points (when do we ever all agree?), you’ll walk away with a more clear, less illusory view of our divides.
