What if American polarization gets a lot worse?

What if our enemies are doing horrible, unforgivable things? What then?

Below is the closing chapter of my books Defusing American Anger (written for all Americans) and How Contempt Destroys Democracy (written for a liberal/anti-Trump audience). It is meant to address the topic “what if things get a lot worse?” In some people’s views, Trump and his administration are already doing (and have done in the past) many horrible things. In other people’s views, liberals/Democrats have done, and are doing, horrible things.

Leaving aside who’s more correct, we should recognize that toxic conflict results in a situation where many people perceive immense harm being done by the “other side.” This perception of immense harm is what then gets in the way of a desire to reduce us-vs-them feelings, warlike mentalities, and contempt. More and more people instinctually feel that conflict resolution ideas are at odds with beating the bad guys. Some may even support this work but think something like, “Your depolarization ideas are nice and all, but we need to focus on beating these horrible people.” Our instincts on how to defeat the “bad guys” lead to us taking more toxic approaches — which in turn leads to us helping create more of the toxic, us-vs-them behaviors on the “other side” that bother us.

But I think it’s important to see that these ideas are not mutually exclusive: it’s important to see that even when we think things are very bad, these ideas are still important — that they’re theoretically the most important ideas. And that if we want to defeat warlike, us-vs-them thinking (on the “other side,” on “our side,” or anywhere), we must take approaches aimed at reducing contempt.

And, yes, these approaches can be counterintuitive — but that’s because our instincts on how to behave when in conflict are so faulty and self-destructive.

This excerpt is about imagining a much worse state of toxic conflict in America, but it applies in general for when we think our opponents are doing horrible things.

Excerpt: “What if things get worse?”

[This excerpt appears in different forms in both my two books.]

A common objection to this work from some politically passionate people goes something like, “Don’t you get it? We’re in a war and you have to pick a side. What if this were Nazi Germany? Would you still be telling people to try to understand the other side?”

To that I’d reply: We’re not in Nazi Germany. We’re also not in Civil War-era America. We’re also not in 1990s Rwanda or the French Revolution.

At this point in time, it’s possible to understand the beliefs and concerns of most of our fellow citizens. It’s quite possible to see how most people’s beliefs can be rationally held, even if we find some of those beliefs wrong or even dangerous.

But there’s a good chance things will get worse. As I write this section in March of 2024, I’m worried about all sorts of things. I’m worried about Trump winning and what the results of that will mean. I’m worried about how Trump’s more extreme supporters will react if Trump is sent to prison and how reactions to that might escalate tensions. I’m worried about such tensions kicking off significant levels of street violence, which will in turn make reducing polarization much harder. I’m worried about big and unpredictable events (like Covid) that might suddenly arise out of the blue to further destabilize and divide us.

Trump voters, for their part, have their own fears about undemocratic behaviors and authoritarian actions on the left, or about what lax policies on immigration and crime might result in.

So for argument’s sake, let’s imagine things get much worse, in whatever way you fear that happening. Let’s imagine that there comes to be significant political violence, whether mainly on one side or mainly on the “other side.” Let’s say that many people on one side or both sides have done horrible, unforgivable things.

It’s still valuable, even in the midst of chaos, to see the humanity of your enemies and to try to convince them of the wisdom of making better choices and taking better paths. It’s still important to attempt to win their hearts and minds.

You do this not because it’s the “nice thing” to do. You do this because some people on the other side may come around to seeing things your way — or at least seeing some of your points.

This is what many people miss about persuasion. It’s about much more than persuasion. When you try to persuade others, you show them the better versions of your arguments and you show them you’re a rational, compassionate person who can be reasoned with, and these things help lower people’s anger. Whether you “win” the argument or not, the attempt alone helps mend divides. But when we enter major conflicts, so many people quickly give up on even attempting persuasion. [An episode of my podcast about persuasion in polarized environments.]

David Blankenhorn is the co-founder of the depolarization group Braver Angels and also a scholar of Abraham Lincoln. In his book In Search of Braver Angels: Getting Along Together in Troubled Times, he talked about Lincoln’s depolarizing approach:

Lincoln never saw his opponents as his enemies. Even in war, the harshest of human social struggles, he did not demonize, did not indulge in abusive stereotypes, did not falsely exaggerate disagreements, and did not treat his opponents as either less than human or too depraved and delusional to even seek to understand.

Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederate States of America, was Lincoln’s opposite in many ways, including temperament. In 1861 he said: “Our people now look with contemptuous astonishment on those with whom they had been so recently associated.” Lincoln did not think or talk that way. Nor did he respond in kind to personal attacks, even as they rained down on him without cessation. [...]

In his Second Inaugural Address in 1865, as the Civil War neared its end, Abraham Lincoln could have declared his certainty that God favored his side. But in one of the most important statements ever uttered by a U.S. president, Lincoln, who could lead a war and sacrifice his life for his convictions while renaming deeply empathetic, said simply: “The Almighty has His own purposes.”

Lincoln was an example of someone who took firm action while keeping in mind the humanity of his enemies. Hopefully you can see the wisdom of this approach. If Lincoln had spoken in more polarizing, insulting ways, might he have provoked more passion in his enemies and caused them to fight harder? Might his way of being have been a factor in the North winning the war — or winning it as quickly as they did? Could his way of speaking have been a factor in reducing Southern animosity after the war and in holding America together?

Is it possible that empathetic leaders who understand these ideas always have a large advantage? Is it possible this is why aggressive, divisive, and narcissistic leaders so often fail?

The book The Anatomy of Peace also includes points about the strength of empathetic approaches, even in the midst of war. The book takes the form of a fictional story, with dialogue between its characters. Here’s an excerpt from that book that talks about Saladin, the Muslim military leader who, during the Crusades, recaptured large regions back from the Christian Crusaders:

“Let’s compare Saladin’s recapture of Jerusalem to the earlier capture by the Crusaders.” He looked at Pettis. “Do you notice any differences in the two victories?”

“Certainly,” Pettis said. “The Crusaders acted like barbarians.”

“And Saladin?”

“He was almost humane,” Pettis said. “For someone who was attacking, anyway.”

“Say more about what you mean by humane.”

Pettis paused to gather his thoughts. “What I mean, I think, is that Saladin seems to have had regard for the people he was defeating. Whereas the crusading forces seem — well, they seem to have been barbaric, as I said before. They just massacred all those people, without regard for human life.”

“Exactly,” Avi agreed. “To the initial crusading forces, the people didn’t matter. That is, the Crusaders didn’t really regard them as people so much as objects or chattel to be driven or exterminated at will. Saladin, on the other hand, saw and honored the humanity of those he conquered. He may have wished they had never come to Jerusalem, but he recognized these were people he was doing battle with and that he therefore had to see, treat, and honor them as such.” [...]

“In every moment, we are choosing to be either like Saladin or like the crusading invaders. In the way we regard our children, our spouses, our neighbors, colleagues, and strangers, we choose to see others either as people like ourselves or as objects. They either count like we do or they don’t. In the former case, since we regard them as we regard ourselves, we say our hearts are at peace toward them. In the latter case, since we see them as objects, we say our hearts are at war.”

Even in the midst of battle, we should try to remember this basic truth: that other people are like us. Not because it’s a nice thing to do, or because it makes them or us feel good, or because it helps us get what we want — but because it’s the truth.

That was an excerpt that appears in my books Defusing American Anger (for all Americans) and How Contempt Destroys Democracy (for a liberal/anti-Trump audience). Learn more about my books here.

Read “Can you oppose Trump while also working on reducing toxic polarization?”