This column, unfortunately, is in the "both sides do it" category, the slippery escape into moral relativism that makes no distinction between cutting off healthcare for children and supporting the civil rights of black people. "It's just politics." No, it's not. Put Professors Mason and Kalmoe aside. Turn to the work of two academics named Ornstein and Mann. (In the credibility department it should be noted that they've been paid for years by a Republican Party think tank.) These two academics have argued for nearly a decade that the Republican Party is a "radical insurgency" that can without much of a stretch be described as fascist. The argument is that Republicans are determined to install one-party rule aligned with the American oligarchy. Republicans have, on occasion, virtually admitted it, and their voters' are behind them. Yet Republicans can call Democrats evil? Of course, because a black president is an evil by itself. (Their voters virtually admit that, too, in poll after poll.) The data of Kalmoe and Mason miss the point. The point is that we are headed toward fascism and Republicans are taking us there. Fascism, said Mussolini, "is when you can't put a cigarette paper between the interests of the government and the interests of corporations." If you're still mouthing arguments about "left wing radicals" censoring campus speech, the discussion isn't even worth having. Just to be clear, 52% of Republicans say black people are either stupid or lazy. Is that evil?
25
I suspect that those numbers on the Left have been rising since the days of the Bush 2 administration and Karl Rove's scorched earth campaign tactics, and spiked as we watched the Tea Partiers and Trump go after Pres. Obama with their lies and racism. Then McConnell and his GOP confreres blockaded Obama court nominees, including Merrick Garland. Plus unending assault on "the rest of us" from Fox News, rightist talk radio and internet, and the likes of Ms. Coulter. Thanks to Ohio Republicans, with Boehner's national help, my vote's ability to matter got gerrymandered away in 2010. Top it all off with the Trump campaign and presidency, with their unending conspiracy theories, absolutely dishonest, over the top agit-prop ("Dems hate Jews", etc.), and constant lies, lies, lies.
Trump has been working overtime at dividing us, and with the help on all sides from right-wing hatemongers, he's succeeding. When I see those people behind him, wearing their red MAGA hats and shirts, cheering at his lies, chanting "Build the wall!" and "Lock her up!", and sneering at the journalists present, I have to wonder: what is there to like here? They appear to be delighted with the insults I've described above.
Trump's supporters may be hypnotized, but they are a problem for the future of our democracy. They're not "Satan's spawn" or anything, but they are certainly helping to bring about some very unhealthy changes in our society.
19
The volume of comments asserting “Yes, but the left is more to blame for...” or “Yes, but the right is more to blame for ...” are proof that a lot of people are missing the point of this article.
6
Lumping the 'far right' and the 'far left' is surprisingly stupid. Is there a comparable group on the left to the Oath Keepers? The Klan? The half dozen mass shooters who did their crimes for various far-right reasons? The NY Times' relentless centrism does not serve it well in this discussion.
10
Personally, i don't think the opposition is evil, but i believe Fox News is. If anything i consider the opposition ignorant, perhaps stupid for even watching tabloid state tv. Dem's should watch a few Fox shows and that would explain why the opposition is blind. You will be revolted by how twisted they are.
13
All one has to do is read the comments on the NYT website to see that lots of folks on the left think the Republicans are stupid, evil, and whatever other negative adjective you can think of. On the WSJ website, the comments prove that the right returns the favor (with even more vehemence since the WSJ comments aren't moderated.)
4
I'm nominally a member of the Democratic tribe. I'm also politically engaged. That said, I don't fit in the pattern of those who are so desperate to belong, they accept every position the party defends. Yes, I'm sure those party members exist. But I will suggest that there is a substantial number of us who won't get in line.
Give the republicans credit or blame...they seem to be doing a much better job of lockstep politics. Get an inch out of line and you get hammered. That doesn't seem to be the case on the left. AOC herself knocked out a Democratic establishment power player. What about all the fuss over Ilhan Omar? The party doesn't seem that lockstep to me. Maybe if we were more lockstep, Hilary would be President. If anything, Democrats are too willing to throw each other under the bus.
Decades ago, my congressional district had a liberal Republican congressman who easily won in the general election. Now the district is divided close to 50/50. The last congress person was a Trumpkin...now gone. And yes, that make me very happy. Not because the Democratic replacement is so wonderful, but because the republican was so bad.
But maybe that's the glue that really holds Democrats together. The Trumpublicans are so bad that we have to band together and paper over our differences until the evil is overcome. There, I said it. Feel free to use whatever psychobabble you want to explain it, but I don't believe it's due to my need to join a tribe.
5
False equivalency.
4
About 20% of the population is undiagnosed Cluster B. That's Republicans AND Democrats. Another 20% is subclinical.
There's your 40% right there.
You're welcome.
Party doesn't mean you're not an appalling person, or that you don't engage in what's known as Splitting: seeing things and people in Black and White, either totally Good or totally Evil.
You said, "one in five." Yep. One in five.
2
History has proven that is hard work to argue with stupid. Certainly Trump is no paragon of virtues and cannot tell the truth, nor does he have the temperament or general qualifications required for the job of the president. Now, that a majority of Americans seem to agree with such statement while 40% believe exactly the contrary leaves the Forest Gump response to answer the query: Stupid is what stupid does!
2
Let's take a principal position that has gained popularity of the the left wing of the democratic party:
Medicare for all, which itself is based on a moral principal: health care is a human right.
How is that tribal or demonizing an other in anyway; it is a priori a program *for all*?
1
I find the notion of tribalism a little disingenuous in this article and the sources used. The "tribe" of the Democratic party is quite a sprawling umbrella of "others," while the Republican tribe is largely (almost completely) made up of white Americans -- oh yes, and the few diverse tokens who are desperate to be accepted by whites and the power and privilege they embody. One party is monolithic (very much in keeping with the most punitive parts of the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic traditions), the other is a melting pot. That melting pot often doesn't know how to express who and what it is, but that's because it's always changing. The other, monolithic, group is always afraid of change, afraid of losing its power and money, afraid of losing its status. And as to the "sophisticated voters", I would love to see the actual definition used in those studies and the actual questions used to determine that categorizing. Survey data is so very easy to skew, slice, dice and manipulate.
2
In 1981 in my first year in college, Ronald Reagan was nearly fatally assassinated. The pure joy that event brought to many people at my school: death parties, etc. was chilling. Those people truly believed this was good thing and wanted him to die. I wonder how many commentators here, thirty eight years later would think that was the proper response.
2
The antagonistic tribal behaviors discussed also pose a potential danger to the Democratic Party, by causing a fissure between progressives and moderates. This could end up costing the Democrats dearly in the 2020 presidential election, if some voters stay home because the candidate fails their ideological purity test.
2
I’ve noticed that there are a lot of Democrats who think Trump, along with his associates, should be locked up. Republicans have spent the last few years chanting “Lock her up!” at rallies, the convention, et al.
The researchers from this article will tell you how this shows polarization on both sides, and they’re right, as far as that goes.
What they don’t show is how, after both FBI and numerous Congressional investigations, no charges were found against “her”. Trump and his gang have committed a lot of felonies. They have pled (am I the only one who doesn’t like “pleaded”?”) guilty, been convicted of, or are facing trial for lots of crimes. If you neglect to add this context, what is the point of this article?
2
I don't know about the word "evil," but:
Only one party wants American's to not go bankrupt with medical bills.
Only one party wants to protect Americans from banks ripping off their customers.
Only one party wants to save women from having to have dangerous back-alley abortions.
Only one party has not been committing election fraud.
Only one party is insists voters should not have roadblocks to voting.
Only one party has insisted guns have a roll in mass murders.
Only one party insists on protecting our environment for our grandchildren.
Only one party wants to help young people get a college degree without going bankrupt.
Only one party is holding this corrupt administration accountable.
Only one party actually likes and respects American human beings.
11
I'm sorry but I think this column and it's conclusions are just a bunch of hogwash.
Informed democrats are informed through factual information whereas, your typical conservative is informed via Donald Trump who just makes stuff up or just cheats and gets it off of right wing media. Second, I am very informed on the issues and I disagree with the GOP but I have been just as ticked off by many of the positions my party has taken and was really really ticked off when the base came after people like me to vote for Clinton who wanted people like me to wait my turn for relief from stagnant wages now busted down to Walmart standards even if I didn't work for Walmart. Patient for what?!!!!
We all know the biggest difference between the GOP and the DNC is that the DNC's most difficult challenge is cat herding all the different flavors of democrats into a consistent base to beat GOP lockstep party loyalty.
Third, in the 2016 election Bernie Sanders was all but ignored by the DNC and this paper too. But now a plethera of candidates are jostling for a bid far left of Clinton and have turned the house. Moderate democrats may think they are the steadying hand holding the house majority democratic but the truth is that they are the dead weight that needs to be grateful to their colleagues to their left for helping them to not have to sell out to the right again.
"I hate Republicans because they fight to deny Americans healthcare coverage, vilify Black, Latinx and Middle Eastern people, advocate for imperialistic wars and actively oppress LGBT people" - A Democrat
"I hate Democrats because they are trying to stop me from denying Americans healthcare coverage, vilifying Black, Latinx and Middle Eastern people, advocating for imperialistic wars and actively oppressing LGBT people" - A Republican
3
I don't "hate" the right wing; I'm just deeply curious about the 1%'s reasons for destroying everyone in the middle class and below it.
Do they envision an aristocracy of wealth lording it over hapless, helpless peons groveling in factories and fields?
Or do they have a wealth-based Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder that forces them to deplete the world of all its treasures, like a pack of squirrels determined to hoard every single nut in the forest?
5
There is, at least for now, a world of difference between the two parties. Could anyone conceive of the Republicans nominating the late George Bush the elder (or his son Jeb for that matter) to any office now? They certainly were and are conservatives in the establishment conservative mold. The same could be said for the new junior Senator of Utah, old Mitt R. Now you had better be a flame throwing hard right type comfortable with racist dog whistles and xenophobia.
By contrast, the Democrats (to the consternation of our left wing and it seems on most days, the Gray Lady) still are big tent. Ms. "it girl" of NYC meet Rep.Conor Lamb and Rep. Elisa Slotkin and Rep. Sherrill of N.J. among a dozen other freshman I could name. Hard left meet moderate center-left. With a handful of outliers (ex-Gov. "Aaanold" of CA.) the GOP are monolithic.
The questions might have explored whether "members of the opposition party" really refers to their party's positions. Surely kidnapping children and taking away people's health insurance are evil, but individual Republicans may be decent people who happen to be stupid or ignorant about politics. Many vote Republican because their parents did, and they give it no further thought.
2
yes, on both sides
Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
One of the many reasons I wanted Hillary to win was to put paid to the tactics of rage and abuse shown, endorsed, and encouraged by both of her major opponents.
Alas, instead they’re both back in their pulpits, spewing their fact-free demagoguery to their adoring minions.
2
Today a personal acquaintance of mine posted on Facebook the I was a "Democrat/Communist Party" Member in response to a third party who had commented on "reparations".
Frankly, am 70 and have been a Democrat since I was 12.
I own stock and mutual funds. I have worked in sales for both major corporations and small businesses and I own my own business today. I am somewhere on the political spectrum between moderate Democrat and Progressive.
A communist I'm not, nor have I ever been. Nor have any of my relatives. Do I believe capitalism needs serious tweeking? Yeah. When all the money goes to the top half per cent, there's a problem.
There is a far more serious problem, with what happened, however. The Times moderates these comments for a myriad of valid reasons. Facebook does not really do so.
The man's publicly labeling me a "communist" was in my opinion, pure and simple libel. He published slander about me. I am not a public figure. My name here is even a pseudonym. I am not going to allow him to get away with it and I urge others to take action against these sorts of internet posts when the person committing the libel is known, as is his/her location. My attorney will send a letter demanding an apology. If that does not do the trick and send a message, I will take further legal action. Trump intends to brand Democrats as socialists, and by extension, communists. Democrats need to take action to stop this stuff immediately.
7
Well that was depressing. :(
“Good people on both sides.” Is that what Mr. Edsall is saying? Sure sounds like the sugar coated version of precisely that horrible exercise in false equivalence and abdication of moral responsibility.
Sorry. Go ahead, call me intolerant. Call me the problem, not the solution. But there is such a thing as good and evil, right and wrong. Sometimes you just gotta call a spade a shovel. We are not required to tolerate unjustifiable intolerance, bigotry, hatred, greed, willful ignorance, primitive superstition and outright lies, all in the name of ‘respecting the other guy’s opinion.’ Not when the other guy’s ‘opinion’ is willfully destructive.
And it just so happens that one side of the aisle trades in all of those evils. There is nothing wrong with hoping they will be defeated, and soon.
2
"we emotionally attach ourselves to a particularly political group, remain reflexively loyal to it, and automatically denigrate anyone who disagrees with it — we are indeed hard-wired for this sort of thing "
Yes , in is in our species DNA to do this. Our evolution from various early members of oue species (Homo habilis ·,Homo erectus , Homo rudolfensis , Homo neanderthalensis , Homo Africanis etc. required that the offspring heeded their parents in order to learn how to survive. If they didn`t then they didn`t survive. As a result the development of Critical Thinking genes was not emphasized but "heeding" was. Thus we have silly evangelical parents ruining the minds of their children by steeping them in religious nonsense. Eg. Old Order Amish/Mennonite families (horse & buggy , no electricity, etc.) survive in the 21st century because at least some of their children continue the culture that they were steeped in.
Nevertheless being against universal healthcare , equal pay for women , Planned Parenthood , women controlling their own bodies , shifting tax breaks to the wealthy (because they control Congress) etc. etc means that the lack of a Critical Thinking gene is very harmful to the nation.
I believed that America was better than the Trump-Kushner crime family & its abettors & many are but apparently not enough to keep them out of any position of power & not in jail.I must belong to the extreme thinking Democratic liberal side. eg. Not invading Iraq for Israel
This article is totally consistent with what I learned while driving a cab in the city a half century ago. I was trying to decide what political beliefs to follow. My fares, the people I spoke to, were people that I wanted to learn from. What I did learn was that these people, with a similar background to mine, who had obviously been successful in life, knew few real facts about the very important issues of the day. This was reasonable because they had other things to do with their time. They accepted the group of beliefs of their peers and of other sources that they respected. For most people, even the most educated, that is all there is to how they acquire their political beliefs.
4
Tribes can be artificial constructs built on observable although irrelevant differences. The existence of the "racially superior" white tribe justified killing Indians and enslaving blacks. The concept was heavily promoted by people who wanted the Indian's land and black slave labor.
In more recent times Republicans have used racial and religious tribalism to create alliances, adopting the Southern Strategy, and linking themselves to Christian Conservatives. They used conservative constitutional ideas to defend segregation. That drew in whites who perceived their status as threatened. Pushing the abortion issue cemented the religious alliances. Those alliances were then used to promote conservative economic ideas. The Republican party and Christian conservatives seemed to form a single tribe.
Race and religion are potent sources of conflict, far more so than, say, a difference over marginal tax rates. Hence, much of today's bitter conflict.
The peculiar clustering of certain ideas isn't entirely accidental. I've been told that human responsibility for climate change is an idea pushed by atheist scientists who deny God's dominion over nature. That goes nicely with ideas promoted by fossil fuel companies. If prosperity is a mark of God's favor to the virtuous, hostility toward social programs can be justified.
The issues that define a given group seem very consistent to a member of that group, even if they appear unrelated to an outsider.
2
Compulsory voting is the norm in Australia (and not at all controversial). It helps keep our politics less polarised. Why is there no discussion of this in the US?
2
Thank you for this article. Unfortunately, I was not surprised to hear that there is a significant portion of both major parties that thinks members of the other party are sub-human and violence against them is justifiable. I was slightly surprised to have the author say the numbers were higher on the left than on the right. But then I read the comments section. Comment after comment from left-leaning people justifying why their anger at the right is good and proper. It's hard to let go of that anger. It makes us feel righteous and justified. That's what makes it so dangerous.
5
Dear Mr. Edsall,
Spot-on. We as a society as so polarized, and there are many reasons for it. Thank you for the even-handed piece.
2
I agree with No Bandwagons that the study is more aligned with group mentality than political polarization. I also take issue with grouping activism with a strong voting record. Seems more digging could be done. I do agree that when in a campaign active group one feels as if they must align with the complete policy group. However, as an activist and strong voter, I find it difficult to align with every party decision even if I agree with the predominate party ideology.
Additionally, I take strong issue with the statement that "since the enlightenment, we have been attempting to build bridges between disciplines." If this were the case each discipline would not have a unique nomenclature to describe similar if not exactly the same concept.
1
Quite an eye-opening piece. And not very encouraging.
But a civilized society ought to find a way to mollify mildly at least the venom being spewed by this "group animosity."
I thought Republicans would be more radical, but a greater percentage of Democrats are. Perhaps that maybe a reflection of the clear division in the Republicans about their feelings towards President Trump. A sizeable percentage of Republicans/Conservatives detests Trump, while a larger group among them about blindly follows him.
I am more worried about the radical nature of the Newly minted Democrats. I'm almost a socialist, but I admire John Delaney, Pete But... & Mitch Landrieu much more than AOC who criticized FDR, as a racist, which I believe is a reflection of her immaturity with a bit hubris & stubbornness. I hope she will mature. I am hoping that she will be the first female president, either in 2025 or 2029.
The present female candidates are no match for Trump. Sen. Warren or Klobuchar can be a VP choice. Still I FEAR Trump maybe reelected, unless Delaney or Landrieu gets the nomination. Pete B. could also be a good VP choice. I don't see enough humility with self confidence, to effectively challenge Trump, in others than, Delaney, Landrieu & Pete B.
But things could change phenomenally as time passes, as it did in 2016.
2
I think what's really happening is that people on both sides (all sides) have lost representation in government, business, services and too many facets of everyday life. The vitriol is misdirected at each other -- like poor street children fighting among each other for scraps of garbage -- when their anger should be directed at the billionaire class who are abusing and manipulating the system to their advantage and, thus, abusing and stealing from We The People. We need the 38% to wake up and see the truth about their so-called leaders.
7
When I find myself in proximity to hate I tend to ask myself the old Latin saying, "Qui Benefacit Animae?" or "Who benefits?" The author's point about group dynamics/identity granted, nonetheless it is rarely the haters who get much out of it.
I am neither a Democrat or Republican and the "both sides" thing is just not going to cut it. There may be some intolerance within both party bases, but the real world impact of the crazy right is far beyond the crazy left.
We have one party that claims to be for a smaller and less intrusive government but wants to tell a Doctor what they can tell a patient regarding abortion and to restrict that procedure by any means necessary.
This same party puts energy and mining lobbyists in charge of government oversight of the environment & public natural resources.
This same party that claims to value life has no problem taking food, housing, & medical care away from our poorest and most vulnerable citizens.
This same party claims to be concerned about deficits and the debt, but passed a massive tax cut for corporations and the wealthiest Americans that will shortly drive the deficits to easily $2 trillion according to David Stockman- Ronald Reagan's first Budget Director. They will shortly begin using that debt to demand cuts to Social Security that is self-funded and does not contribute to the deficit.
This same party claims to be pro-life but has no problems with using the death penalty frequently despite the disparity of legal representation between the wealthy & poor Americans.
This same party claims to love our troops & veterans frequently votes against the interests of not only our troops in uniform but our wounded & disabled veterans.
That party is the mainstream GOP.
12
The only problem with this analysis is that it doesn't fully account for the possibility that one side is right in its assumption that the other side is downright evil, yet this may very well be the case. It is an American truism that when there is a dispute between two opposing sides, 'the truth is somewhere in the middle,' but that is often not the case. More typically, one side is making things up in order to cover over a very real wrong. That doesn't mean that the "wrong" side doesn't feel justified--it absolutely does--but it's still the wrong side. We are a nation of equivocators, but Trump has given the lie to that business. Now we know who we are, at least. I pray the left prevails.
7
The only problem with this analysis is that it doesn't fully account for the possibility that one side is right in its assumption that the other side is downright evil, yet this may very well be the case. It is an American truism that when there is a dispute between two opposing sides, 'the truth is somewhere in the middle,' but that is often not the case. Typically, one side is making things up in order to cover over a very real wrong. That doesn't mean that the "wrong" side doesn't feel justified--it absolutely does--but it's still the wrong side. Such is the case in contemporary American politics and it is right that is wrong.
1
I am a liberal in a small town. Most of my friends, neighbors and close relatives are extremely conservative. It is not that hard to talk to people and find common ground. We’re just out of practice. For the recent election, I went to about 500 houses and less than 5% were notably hostile. It does no one any good to disagree without making an effort to understand the opposing viewpoint. If you don’t know the why you can’t make the change.
9
I have tried (although not always very successfully) to discuss politics in a civilized manner with a diverse group of friends and family and to listen and learn as well as express my opinion. I want to hear from those with differing opinions. I want to understand what drives them. Sometimes I see some logic behind others’ viewpoints and sometimes I’m left shaking my head. Though I am a liberal, I do not toe the line on every progressive issue. I agree with The Times editors that it is perplexing that so often we subscribe to every issue on our party’s platform instead of thinking each one through. I am a liberal, a Democrat, and a feminist who is opposed to abortion yet I feel I am looked at as a traitor to my party by other Democrats and especially by feminists. I feel as though abortion diminishes women. But that is a whole other discussion.
5
This article doesn't mention the elephant in the room: screen addiction. We spend too much time looking at screens and too little looking into each others' eyes. We spend too much time on phones while doing other things. It takes us away from being here now. It affects the development of young children's brains (including your screen use before they're old enough to use one). All this affects healthy attachment, affects our neurochemistry and makes us less empathic. This is the true root cause of the tribalism - the tribalism is a substitute for the actual felt sense of belonging we all need.
5
From the story: "Some 20 percent of Democrats (that translates to 12.6 million voters) and 16 percent of Republicans (or 7.9 million voters) do think on occasion that the country would be better off if large numbers of the opposition died... 'What if the opposing party wins the 2020 presidential election. How much do you feel violence would be justified then?' 18.3 percent of Democrats and 13.8 percent of Republicans said violence would be justified on a scale ranging from 'a little' to 'a lot.' "
Why is there a discrepancy between the parties on these measures?
@Arundo Donax...I would have expected Republican partisans to score higher on the violence scale since much of their ideology seems callous to the point of cruelty. For example, much of Republican rhetoric about abortion strips women of their humanity, reducing them to vessels for the gestation of embryos. Tearing up the social safety net also hurts the Republican base in red states, and the wholesale elimination of the ACA, Medicare, and Social Security could potentially cause countless preventable deaths. Not to mention that rolling back environmental regulations, allowing corporations to dump waste in the waterways and backyards of our communities, seems like very poor stewardship as well as a cause of considerable misery.
Maybe it’s just me (or media bias?), but in articles I’ve read about acts of partisan violence, I’ve noticed left-wing radicals tend to vandalize property while right-wing radicals seem quick to assault other people at the slightest provocation. That’s another reason why I think the findings in these studies seem rather unexpected.
1
Over a decade ago I recognized that the two political poles in the US were too far apart to be papered over by the constitutional system under which we operate. We see that today. With a winner take all system, people will sort themselves into 2 teams. In a proportional system, people will sort themselves into proportional groups.
With a two team system, neither team will ever want to reform this, because they rotate through having power, and want full power when it is their turn.
There will be no change to this situation in the near future. Even becoming a world pariah will not have an impact, because for GOP voters that would be a mark of success.
1
Let's look at these numbers in the "half-full" sense. How many voters do NOT advocate violence? How many voters still believe there are reasonable people who are politically different, but agree to disagree?
How many feel it's better for the world and our country to be inclusive, equality for all? How many advocate a few extra tax dollars, not for the rich, but for poor children who need help with food?
The writer is asking the wrong questions.
1
Building bridges is a good idea, the back and forth of traffic could offer a equilibrium. But to build a bridge requires two fixed points and the point on the right keeps moving in a zig zagging movement that seems to constantly move it farther away. So until the right bank stabilizes there is not much point in starting construction. And if it ends up too far away it may not be feasible to due to the costs to our society.
3
Usually I agree with the false-equivalence charge common among those of us on the left side of this divide, but this time I see something a little different. I believe there is plenty of irrational, tribal-level hatred on both sides, but that it is distinguished less by its kind or degree than by the asymmetry of its results. That is, the further one skews to the right, the more likely he or she is to support Republicans, but the further one skews to the left, the less likely he or she is to support Democrats. Ergo, the greater the polarization, the greater the odds of permanent Republican rule. No wonder the GOP loves to tear us all apart!
3
It is odd (or expected?) that the bulk of comments I have glanced at do seem to support the findings of these studies (and Mr. Edsall's summary of them).
Also very interesting how many people seem to be quite adept at treating subjective interpretations as objective fact and backup for their own...(for lack of a better word)... arguments.
The criticism here (that I have seen...admittedly without wading through all 800+ comments) seems to be coming almost entirely from those who would consider themselves from the Left. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"
Self-reflection seems to be a lost art on both "sides" in the Age of Trump. ;-)
4
I've never really abandoned the view that the well known false equivalence might actually be a true equivalence. The numbers in this article are interesting:
"How about: “Do you ever think: ‘we’d be better off as a country if large numbers of the opposing party in the public today just died’?”
Some 20 percent of Democrats (that translates to 12.6 million voters) and 16 percent of Republicans (or 7.9 million voters) do think on occasion that the country would be better off if large numbers of the opposition died.
We’re not finished: “What if the opposing party wins the 2020 presidential election. How much do you feel violence would be justified then?” 18.3 percent of Democrats and 13.8 percent of Republicans said violence would be justified on a scale ranging from “a little” to “a lot.” "
People (including especially me) need to spend a lot more time looking into the mirror than they seem to do.
5
@blaine
I would be curious to know what each side thinks of as "violence". Does the side with the gun fetish think "violence" means something different than the side that likes public protest movements?
I'm not sure it's useful to consider America's "tribalism" without reference to the policy. It's also hard to swallow the suggestion that we all mindlessly adopt our group preferences without reference to policy.
Consider:
1. Scientists agree that climate change poses serious risks to humanity. One tribe wants to do something about this. The other doesn't, or at least empowers politicians who don't, which is effectively the same thing. Are these two sides equivalent?
2. One tribe thinks our gun laws are reckless and wants to do something to decrease gun violence. The other doesn't, or at least empowers politicians who don't, which is effectively the same thing. Is rage over dead schoolchildren equivalent to rage over a theoretical loss of freedom from reasonable gun control?
3. One tribe wants to expand voting rights and access to healthcare. The other doesn't, or at least empowers politicians who don't, which is effectively the same thing.
4. One tribe wants to do something about economic inequality. The other doesn't, or at least empowers politicians who don't, which is effectively the same thing.
It seems to me these tribal disagreements hinge on fundamental issues that directly affect people's lives. One side refuses to act, and there is no middle ground between doing something and doing nothing. If tribalism is worsening, maybe it's just because the do somethings are finally matching the intensity of the do nothings. Maybe the do somethings are fed up.
9
This column fails to acknowledge the role fox News plays in stirring up partisan hate.
Every program on Fox News is dedicated to stoking fear of minorities and liberals. The hosts repeat lies and speculation.
The facts are cherry-picked to support a very narrow point of view and many subjects that portray Trump and the GOP in a negative light are not even covered.
Fox News is the fuel to the fire that keeps hate burning bright in our country.
4
As other liberal commenters have noted, this column does not match what I see and hear. Yes, I have liberal friends who are ready to denigrate a Trump supporter without a thought, but more often than not, what none of us understands is the support for a president who:
verifiably lies multiple times a day,
spends an inordinate amount of time golfing and tweeting,
appears to get his policy ideas from a morning TV show on Fox,
wastes taxpayer money on rallies and appoints Cabinet members who also waste taxpayer money,
has spent a lifetime outside of government yet spurns any advice from experts,
has no family values except nepotism,
defrauded customers of his online "university" and donors to his "charity,"
profits from diplomatic guests staying at his Washington hotel,
shuts down the government on a whim after reneging on a deal he had made with Congress,
trusts the leader of Russia over his own country's intelligence agencies...
and on and on.
I don't care what policies he is pursuing, he is unfit as President of the United States. The Democrats kicked out liberal hero Al Franken for FAR FAR less. How can anyone then say that Democratic anger with this Administration and its Republican defenders is unjustified "both sides" partisanship? Especially when there are so many former Republicans and Never Trumpers roaming about? It boggles the mind!
9
I never could have imagined that anyone in my Democratic Party would wish the opposition dead, a few select people perhaps but not as a general statement. My personal thinking about the Republican Party changed around the time of Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay and Karl Rove. Their intent appeared to be to demolish the Democrats regardless of the cost and seize absolute power. The obfuscation of Mitch McConnell added to the fire in his unguarded hatred of Obama and his embrace of the tea party/freedom caucus. The frosting on this cake was the nomination of and the election of trump, an evil man by any standard. Consequently I have no sympathy for the opposition if trump and the Republicans inflict hardship upon them, they deserve it.
6
There is a tendency to create worst-case scenarios, and react as though that was the reality. The liberals are inviting hordes of ragged terrorists through open borders? All our guns are going to be confiscated? Babies will be ripped from their mothers wombs? Of course not. Yet those pictures are vividly painted by propagandists.
Police have a license to kill any non-white citizen? People without private wealth will be left to starve and die deprived of any medical care? The courts are set up to protect the wealthy? Conservatives are racist, xenophobic, misogynists? Probably not, at least not that extremely. Yet that expresses the fears of many on the left. (I honestly tried to come up with some left wing fears that were totally outrageous, but I am who I am.)
What I see in this article is that in all disciplines, the reliance on data means that less importance is given to anecdotal evidence, which reflects people's real experience.
We can observe the violation of our political mores and standards, and hear that there is "no evidence" that what we see is actually happening. We can choose to believe our eyes, or what we are told. The choice is unsurprising.
We're given targets for our rage, told who to blame. Are we willing to examine the motives of the people we believe in?
The "us/them" paradigm is a function of our neurology, which is basically a yes/no switchboard. Disciplined thinking demands allowing that we can be wrong, before deciding.
Beyond all considerations of relative policy making there are over half of us to whom being lied to non stop by a fraud and grifter and lazy bully whose entire biography is an indelible proof of his sociopathy:
Reel in the daily horror of his acolytes appeasing and enabling him in some nightmarish dance of ends justifies means.
This represents a total abrogation of the commitment to core democratic and humanistic principles which made this country unique in the annals of world history.
This is what happens when a mass of citizenry decides that the best answer to dealing with our biggest problems and opportunities is best handled by leaders who act in the ways THEY themselves would if they were in charge.
Emotional anarchy!
A race to the bottom led by mass confirmation bias and the kruger dunning principle reinforced by constant lying and propaganda by their beloved demagogues.
With ten of millions of voters unable to distinguish between truth and lies -honor and corruption - competency and pure ignorance - Our democracy is now imperiled as never before.
Climate science denial alone is worth rabbing the pitchforks and lighting the torches!
It's not about partisanship as we knew it -It's about absolute proven RIGHT vs absolute proven WRONG!
AND immoral!
2
It is fascinating to me how this very Liberal readership can take to the Comment section and call Edsall's piece "balanced" when the percentage and absolute numbers indicate that Democrats are the most rabid among the collective minority of "core" Party voters.
The Left is so blinkered, running around with transphobia, homophobia, Earth is boiling, and America "sukks" signs. I think it is time to take a little vacation or double up on either meds or visits to the therapist or yoga mat.
Most of the Liberals I know, and I know a bunch, are practically ill - physically. To me, that symbolizes that they must be deriving the very meaning of their life from politics and winning arguments with opponents.
It is very sad. And, as a Right-Leaning Moderate, I can understand why the ultra-Right are a bit freaked out by the Left.
People will get crazy listening to a post-pubescent AOC preach about the world; the world she knows so well at 30 years old.
1
@Stuart
I feel ill because the state in which I currently is trying to pass a bill banning abortion. This bill is written in a way that literally doesn't even mention the pregnant woman, but simply refers to the fetus as an "early infant" (gag) who merely needs "nourishment and a safe place to live" -- completely deleting me from the picture-- while abrogating my right to determine who uses my body.
Let's be clear. I'm a woman who can take time off work and afford to take a little abortion vacation if needed. But most women can't. And it feels extremely personal.
It is obscene and offensive to my CORE to listen to politicians who purport to work for ME actively work to undermine my rights and my physical and psychological well being.
Yes, I feel physically sick at the thought that some fat old man wants to force ME to gestate against my will.
I feel physically sick knowing that these people who supposedly work for ME do not see me as a full person. That they do not consider that I exist. They ignore me. They think my right to determine whether I have a baby doesn't matter. They are happy to give access to my body to other "people" and then pat themselves on the back. They may as well just give me the finger.
Nothing would impact my life more dramatically than being forced to bear a child against my will. I'd rather lose a hand. Or my job. This is my physical body. Maybe you don't get that because you're a man. It's absolutely sickening.
This column has immense practical importance for all of us, especially those of us not in the political center but on the wings. It is a call to sanity and a call to moral clarity. It is a call for restraint and a call for perspective. For the numbers Edsall’s column invokes, those “Lethal Mass Partisanship” numbers, are truly frightening—-and potentially not merely devastating but annihilating—for our democratic nation as well as its citizens’ lives.
Make no mistake, if the temperatures of hostilities and hatreds are not moderated in significant ways, civil war may very well ensue.
The right wing is increasingly making its position clear. As a right-wing adherent put it in a letter to the editor of the Washington Post:
“A large part of USA believes Mr. Trump is chosen by God to end social security, Medicare, and abortion rights. They are locked, loaded, and ready to defend his presidency at all costs.”
While his words admittedly set my veins afire, I believe those of us on the left can only afford to respond with civility and dignity—albeit vigorously and passionately. And hope upon hope that peace triumphs over discord, goodwill over hostilities. Anything less than civility and dignity could portend our ruin.
4
I'll answer the question of "Why Now?" for the increase in partisanship.
The status quo for the majority of Americans includes 40 years of loss of income, job prospects, way of life, cultural and psychic stability and has led to a radicalization of a huge majoritarian mass of Americans who want fundamental changes to: health care, minimum wage, environmental protection, prosecution of corporate lawbreakers, changes in marginal tax rates and changes in electoral processes.
All the personal, financial and business interests that now own our government and who have huge investments in the profitable status quo have absolutely no interest in reforming this system. This includes 100% of Republicans and 40% of Democrats (checkout the pile of Democrats who want to kill Net Neutrality).
In the face of this huge disjunction between Congress and the American people, the easiest way for the oligarchs to prevent change is to hire a brawler for a President to spread unending chaos. Chaos means nothing gets done. Oligarchs win.
The strategy of the oligarchs is to control and stoke the fires of fundamentalist radicals -- religious and not. They want to reduce and paralyze government because a reformed government is what is going to cut into their profit margins. It's all about the money. Partisanship, polarization, party affiliation, issue identification -- all these are simply utilitarian methods to increase the level of acrimony so as to preempt government reform.
8
This is a fascinating article by a wise and insightful columnist. I'm impressed with the "new" idea that it's the educated elite cementing polarization rather than some ill-defined sillier demographic. How optimistic! What shall we do with this insight? We can imagine that some people will deny this, cite evidence from one side or the other, doubling down. There are both discouraging and hopeful trends in this strange and seemingly volatile time. Aside from obvious political bias at sources like FOX and MSNBC, ALL news outfits know the click value of more mundane but still incendiary and partisan headlines. The Atlantic's incredibly polarizing but successful turn-around editor moved to NYTimes editorial a few years ago, and as if to flex this power, an editorial questioning climate change promptly showed up to ignite readers. Identity politics encourages myopic retribution rather than empathetic empowerment for the aggrieved. On the other-hand, red and blue Brooks, who popularized mocking the nation's regional differences in "Bobos..." is now pure purple, busily touring the country to piously "weave" people together. Folks like Jon Stewart insist that we pay attention to the Trump administration's fair dealings with the 9-11 first responders. And recent article points out that climate change response advocates exist on both sides of the legislative political aisle. It's easier to be clear-eyed about our commonalities if you choose to look at them.
3
what an amazing article. it explains to me why i can't accept abortion, yet want it to remain available to those who choose it.
and yet i don't personally know anyone who agrees with me, or who is willing to have a meaningful conversation about it. the older i get, (now 80), the more complex issues become. i'm a liberal voter, with humanism as my baseline moral stance that informs my votes. it isn't easy these days, is it?(
2
From where I sit (in a red state), the right has been waging war on liberals for a long time. Mostly in the past, liberals just wanted to sing kumbayah, reach across the aisle, compromise, and let love win the day. And behold, liberals elected a president--Obama--who promised to do that. Washington DC. Obama's younger supporters, who thought the "culture war" was just a bizarre fantasy of elderly minds, believed that bipartisan legislation could be passed to benefit the masses.
But then reality intervened. Which was that the GOP was determined he would be a one-termer and have ZERO successes. And did everything to make that happen, include deny his citizenship.
In 2016, when Trump and his supporters started talking about 2nd Amendment solutions if the election did not go their way, liberals sat up and noticed.
So yeah, liberals are more mobilized than we used to be. I still want to believe in reaching across the aisle--but I live in a state where GOPers, who are trying at least as extremist as Trump, seem a little too open to 2nd Amendment solutions across the board.
Until the right stands down, I don't see much hope.
6
How ironic, and disheartening, is it that this piece, which attempts to take an impartial view of the virulent tribalism tearing the country apart, generates a comment section which is itself nothing but a manifestation of that virulent tribalism? How can we even begin to try to heal the divide, when we can't even talk about it without fighting?
We humans may have a natural predisposition toward tribalism, but it's a defensive behavior, rooted in fear. Ultimately, I believe, most of us would prefer to get along rather than be at constant war with each other. And we all share similar desires for such basic things as health, security, comfort, prosperity, love, friendship, community, acceptance, and the elusive "happiness".
That said, there's never a shortage of things for us to disagree about and fight over, and the hyper-polarized climate we find ourselves in today is the direct result of cynical,divisive politicians identifying and exploiting those fault lines. Making matters worse is the entrenched two-party system that realistically gives us only an either/or option, and has degenerated into all out partisan warfare, with zero common ground. (This can be directly traced to the machinations of Newt Gingrich beginning in the late 70's.)
Any hope we have of breaking out of the death spiral we're in lies in a new generation of independent leaders emerging with a message of unity and the common good that resonates across party lines. Time is of the essence.
4
I would agree with the premise that American political affiliation has become more polarized, and I would agree that it's generally a bad thing. But let's not fall for the allure of the "truth in the middle" fallacy- this polarization is a direct consequence of a political arms race that the Right has been fueling for decades.
For my entire life, the tenor I've heard from the Democratic Party is to tack to the middle. The party deliberately tamps down its left flank so as not to allow it to take over in hopes that this will make them a palatable option for centrist and independent voters. A lot of this strategy was adopted in the wake of Reaganism, as the political power center as a whole shifted rightward. Republicans have moved farther and farther away from this, moving from the pro-business Republicanism of Reagan, then escalating to the Evangelical-tinged, war-mongering Bush administration and finally culminating in the vile, unconscionable Trump administration. The Tea Party elections on 2010 even took sitting GOP reps by surprise- even they didn't truly realize just how extreme their base had become until they themselves were voted out to make room for more extreme, uncompromising representation.
Don't forget: the GOP picked Trump out of a field of 16 primary choices, and then later even the "moderate" Republicans went with Trump over the center-left Hillary Clinton. That's all you need to know about who the extremists really are.
5
The comments here prove out the author's point.
Instead of discussing the conclusions drawn by the author and his sources - that our partisanship has far less to do with actual political principals than it has to do with an evolutionary need to align oneself within a group - many of the commentators here predictably engage in casting aspersions against their perceived out-group (the Left or the Right), by denigrating and dehumanizing them.
"Hate" is indeed a dangerous emotion. No one who wields it actually think they are engaged in "hatred" - on the contrary, they believe they are engaged in an almost holy crusade for what they perceive to be real, true and morally virtuous.
Just ask the leaders of the Crusades, Joseph McCarthy, left-wing radicals violently bent on censoring campus speech, and right-wing racists marching in Charlottesville.
They all have one thing in common: the "moral purity" of their cause.
88
@No Bandwagons
This link of an interview with the eminent Biologist-anthropologist- political scientist. Prof. Robert Sapolsky describes his life work, that affirms the comment above. He even discovered the brain structures we share with baboons that define the emotion of love-trust or hate-kill
https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2019/03/11/exp-gps-0310-robert-sapolsky-interview-in-full.cnn
When this five minute segment is over, the continuation is a video of Steve Colbert bonding with those who hate Trump. Our society rewards such media cons lavishly, Dr. Sapolsky insights are virtually unknown.
4
The question is what do we do? I don’t feel there is anyway to communicate in a rational manner. Mentioning even minor changes ends up in attacks of socialist, snowflake, trump derangement symptom, elitist, extremist left, etc.
Nice paper but the problems are more complicated and dangerous. We have actual hate crimes on the rise and people being put in detention camps.
Let me ask you this. If we went back in time to the days before the rise of fascism. If you step into the shoes of someone not a fascist and tried to work with them or convince them otherwise what would happen? Would this paper apply during the rise of fascism?
How do you recommend communicating before we end up repeating the past? And is there any real communication possible?
1
@No Bandwagons,
Well-said!
I was contemplating the concept of confirmation bias as I read the comments section. Commenters seemed to use it as an excuse to dig the battle trenches even deeper, instead of taking the opportunity for some much needed national soul searching.
That being said, I was alarmed by an old Army buddy of mine who proclaimed that "The Libs. needed to be cleansed " and that "compassion is the greatest human weakness" I no longer keep in contact, but I still send him a card every year on compassion.
He's a 3%'r by the way.
1
I love(d) the Times but am appalled at the bias and, frankly some of the disinformation being shoved out. I hate the absolute partisan bias that has saturated the news reporting.
I've accused the Times of tearing the people apart. I have pointed out repeatedly that demagogues like Charles Blow and Michele Goldberg are fomenting hate. When I read the comments on their columns I'm taken aback at the hate, the venom, the vitriol and the abject rage. The comments look no different than those found at Breitbart on one side or Turning Point Memo on the other. Shame.
I blame the new publisher, the Times has really slipped in the past while - there's almost a sense of millennial whininess, vindictiveness and entitlement emanating from the paper. I honestly consider cancelling my subscription regularly, perhaps it's articles like this one that keep me hanging on.
3
I just love that lady in the photo.
Her sunglasses hide her Ignorance perfectly.
1
In reading Edsall's opinion piece and reader comments today, I recall the old dialectical search for truth: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. What appears to be missing right now is synthesis. Today, when someone else holds forth an opinion that conflicts with one's own opinion, the solution is typically to yell one's own opinion louder. No synthesis.
There is a couple of things missing today that are needed for mutually respectful debate. One is a joint commitment by all parties to accept and honor the truth even if it does not square with one's own opinions. The other is common allegiance to Enlightenment principles such as rationality, logic, and truth as the ultimate arbiters in the debate.
Because we lack these things, we end up talking, or rather, shouting, past each other. We learned that from what we see and hear from media, which uses persuasion techniques better suited to selling product than discovering truth and promoting mutuality.
5
When Piketty's book "Capital in the 21st Century" came out in 2013 and provided so much empirical data to prove worsening inequality, I mused that the demise of communism had deprived the working class of an implicit threat to the wealthy elites. The latter had worried, throughout most of the 20th century, that communism might appeal to a lot of people - they were so worried that they compromised on taxation and regulation of business and tolerance of unions. Once the Soviet Union had died, the threat was gone and the gloves came off. It then proved pathetically easy to scapegoat non-white minorities and immigrants and foreigners and get white working class voters to demonize them, along with the Democratic party that was aligned with them. Where will it end? They have all the guns.
10
I can't agree with this article.The over-analysis from a psychological perspective of the differences in political viewpoint do not agree with what I see among colleagues and family. We have our disputes, even get angry, but we don't stay angry and what we have in common is a lot more important than our nebulous political beliefs. I might "unfriend" someone because I'm sick of an annoying relative's excessive MAGA posts but that doesn't mean I'll never speak to them again. The noise on social media is just that, noise. I've got lots of conservative friends that shout (I'm a moderate) but they don't shout at me; I've got liberal friends that are too liberal for my taste also.
We remain friends. The media needs to chill out. The rest of us are.
2
Excessively permissive immigration in combination with unsustainable tax cuts over the last 50 years have not helped the situation.
3
I have a theory. It may sound crazy but stay with me. I suspect Putin puts subliminal messages through FoxNews (or something similar to that). The reason I feel this way is: I noticed a lot of people do and say the same thing (use the same expressions, phrases, etc.)
They say things that don't make sense, such as "build the wall", even though anyone with any amount of intelligence knows that a wall wouldn't stop illegal activity.
When someone asks them to explain why they feel the way they do, they say: "I don't know. I just do." (They remind me of characters from the TV show: "The Vampire Diaries" when vampires would have someone under mind control.)
They use the same abbreviations (such as "Dems" for Democrats, even if they have plenty of characters left on Twitter, for example).
They use the same phrases such as "kick the can down the road" and "build the wall". The latest popular one is accusing the person of living in his/her mother's basement - not just basement, not parent's or father's basement but specifically mother's basement. When Hillary was running for office, the popular expressions were: "snowflake", "emails", "Benghazi", "lock her up", etc.
It struck me as strange that so many different people were saying the exact same thing, both on social media and in person - even people in government. That's why I started to wonder what's going on. This isn't normal. This isn't like Americans.
Thoughts?
3
@Will K.
Ideas, memes, tropes, etc can be transmitted like viruses from one person to another. The recipient may not know why he believes what he does, he just does. The armed man who arrived at a Washington pizza joint because he thought Democrats were running a child sex ring from the basement is an example. Efficient transmission mechanisms like TV can transmit a meme to many recipients efficiently and cheaply. When many people use the exact same words to express an opinion, it's likely they got it from a single source. And it is likely they don't know why they believe it, they just do.
The choice is clearer now than it's been in a long time. One party leans toward helping historically oppressed Americans- minorities and those across the spectrum with less money, and one party leans toward helping rich white guys and their minions. One party is OK with a violent destabilized society awash in guns and NRA propaganda and the other want's to become more like the rest of the civilized world, well, civilized- where gun violence is unusual, and where the authorities are brave well trained ninjas that can take down an intoxicated or emotionally upset person with a knife or a sword without being a trigger-happy Barney Fife or mean-spirited and cynical gunslinger shooting them dead. One party leans toward global disarmament the other wants to see nukes proliferate again like it's the good old 1950s with McCarthy et al and restart the cold war to enrich a few arms dealers and weapons manufacturers, maybe even enrich themselves while in office. It's worse than the Bubba Clinton days.
Take your pick America in 2020. There is a lesser of two evils!
5
Republicans are the problem, and we'd be better off without them.
95% of our thoughts, feelings, and actions are emotionally based. We use our intellect to rationalize our feelings.
We all do that. But, still, it's the Republicans who are the real problem, not us. They're a weight around our necks, holding us down.
Here's why:
In the old days we had differences of opinion based on a reasonable interpretation of the facts. We had much the same set of facts but came to different conclusions and we continually reviewed our interpretation.
But now we disagree on the facts. We have different facts. There can be no adjusting our interpretation because their facts do not warrant consideration.
The Republicans have faith-based "facts," that are fake. Liberals have more reality-based facts. Every liberal weighs their reality-facts differently but they're still reality-based. As Wittgenstein said, "They're real enough." They can be reality checked.
Republicans first choose an ideology that is inimical to everyone except themselves, and favors them. Second, they make up facts supporting their alternative reality.
So they lie and cheat. Their primary weapon is false equivalence.
They want us to accept their fake facts and downgrade our real facts. They want to replace our reality with a cancerous fake reality that is solely designed to benefit them while harming the world.
We cannot let that happen. If they won't return to reality, they have to go.
8
@Fourteen
Better off without them, they have to go ... I'm not sure there is too much too add.
This should certainly increase gun sales. Instead of “them” coming to get us it will be Republicans or Democrats.
3
It's possible that Democrats are simply coming to realize that Newt Gingrich was actually right all along: politics is nothing but a struggle for sheer power. Nothing Obama did to reach across the aisle convinced Republicans that working together for the common good was the actual goal of government. Nothing Trump does now seems to dampen the loyalty of his core supporters, or even much dampen the loyalty of the entire Republican base. What do we have to show for it? An illegitimate Supreme Court and lower federal Court system (years of blocking Democratic appointments to all posts achieved that); an illegitimate Presidency which stole the election with the help of an enemy government, continues to wallow in corruption and evil, and did not even win a majority of American votes; an illegitimate and outright non-representative Congress that keeps itself in power with the help of shadow money from the ultra-rich, possibly the same enemy government, and voter suppression.
How can that all be overcome? By winning - and by winning by any means necessary. Republicans we have seen will destroy the Republic for power. Should democrats unilaterally disarm? The Republican voting base appears completely brainwashed by state TV and beyond hope of redemption.
It's clear: when Republicans win, America loses. Every time.
7
I have two questions: 1. When did the acceptability of lying become a group norm? and 2. When the President advocates violence how are citizens supposed to ascribe that to simple tribalism?
5
Suppose half of them were right.
@Prof The other half, left.
(sorry, but I had to)
1
I really question the validity of these studies.
“Do you ever think: ‘we’d be better off as a country if large numbers of the opposing party in the public today just died’? Were respondents allowed a choice of just didn't vote instead?
The question also says died not killed. The question is designed to evoke an answer that appears to signify violence when that is not necessarily the intent of the respondent.
7
What an insightful piece! I've re-read it several times, and I hope it sparks reflection by those who deal in ad hominem attacks and in labeling those with whom they don't agree as enemies.
I hope that society will continue to bring these assaults to our attention when they occur. They need to be seen for what they are: maliciousness under the guise of argument, destruction of government under the guise of small government, and terrorism whenever they aim to instill fear in fellow citizens.
We also need to confront the self - inflicted loss when we direct hate toward others. We're only at our best when everyone is encouraged and actually is able to contribute his or her best. When we facilitate others' ability to be themselves as they desire to be (that old foundational life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), we strengthen our country. Doing that is not a zero sum endeavor; one does not have to lose in order for others to win.
3
From what I've read over the last two years 95% of all the "evil" done in American politics has been done by the Republican Party. If the polls are correct and 31% of voters are always/forever Trump cultists then the 69% needs to step up and hand the GOP their walking papers. Over our history 31% of Americans have been racist, ignorant, sexist and just plain mean. Trump has consolidated them into one group, his followers. We need to send them back to their recliners in front of Fox News thumbing their Bibles. They won't change, ever, so we need to marginalize them and their power and take America back.
5
This comment is unintentionally ironic as it aptly demonstrates the lethal partisanship of which Mr. Edsall writes.
I am not quite as pessimistic as Mr. Edsall seems to be because the hyper partisanship, aggression and moralizing that was revealed in these studies was limited to less than half of the people involved. That suggests that most people are moderate, or try to be so, even when they identify with a particular political party.
So, while the large percentage of people who are hyper partisan is unsettling there is still hope that moderation will win out, particularly when it comes to critical issues that affect most of our lives directly.
1
We underestimate at our peril the degree of Russian influence on social media. Russian influence is significant, growing & expressly designed to stoke fear, hared and demonization of the political opponents. Russians assume the role of American conservative, Americans conservatives and proceed to hurl verbal Molotov cocktails.
Folks this is a public health crisis that can only be solved if we appreciate the massive amounts of agitprop in everything.
Including - not surprisingly - this very commentary thread.
2
As a lifelong Democratic I find the article disturbing , but even more so the flood of comments from people who totally reject it out of hand, their disdain for the opposition so intransigent and blinding their comments provide inadvertent evidence of the validity of Edsall’s point.
5
The media engages in something called 'tactical framing', in which all policy ideas are framed through the lens of which tactics can get them implemented, and what their existence will mean, tactically, for the reelection prospects of the politicians proposing them. So the content of the idea itself doesn't get the proper airtime, and the discussion shifts to the idea's 'winnability'. This works if you're in the media and for nobody else (we get bored talking policy, so they bring in viewers by staging it as a 'cage fight'). Talking about an idea's 'winnability' rather than its content is a version of 'if it bleeds, it leads'. But it automatically sets up every policy idea as a battle rather than a potential path forward. And what role does 'truth' play in war? Consider that Sen Inhofe once said global warming was a hoax because he was able to make a snowball in winter, and just yesterday claimed that a border wall is a national emergency because illegal immigration is going up. If climate change and the wall are battles to be won, then nothing Senator Inhofe said is incorrect because they help win those battles. But, if you really just want to know the truth...
People need to be aware that the media does this all the time to bring in viewers. It's self-serving and far from enlightening. And it sets up people like Sen Inhofe to make outrageous comments not because they are true, but because they are newsworthy: 'if it bleeds, it leads"
2
i used to think that religion evolved as a control mythology in service of tribal leaders and their spook witch doctors. i now suspect it is actually the crystallization of intertribal antagonism and group pretext for violence.
my view is that talk of"tribalism" is just fancy pants academese for fanaticism of a religious color.
i note that 50 million voters is only one seventh of the population, and it seems fair to say that all past religious wars involved a similar proportion of superstitious nutjobs slinging hate while the other six sevenths cowered in disbelief.
whence all this fear and hate? "Uninhabitable Earth" starkly announces that the climate that raised us all is already dead, never to return; we have no future because we rush blindly into imminent climate change of stupefying proportions.
dr. edsall misrepresents the study cited to show that the "most informed" voters are most partisan. the study only claims that the most partisan are in effect the most widely read; no test of factual or accurate knowlege was administered. one can read with as little understanding as one listens.
how many actually know the facts of climate, overpopulation, pollution, economics?
fear is the result of ignorance, fear misplaced and projected, bloated by our inalienable right to fact freedom, inflamed by politics, exasperated by inaction.
here comes your future, people, right in your face, your selfie face, your aggrieved and whining face ... mired in distraction.
3
@drollere
The control mythology was originally designed to benefit the leaders, as now, but also to control the serial uprising of the unconscious seeking suffering and apocalypse from war. But the unconscious is all-powerful and coerced religion - and now the Republicans - to serve it's need for a human blood sacrifice.
It is not democrats who are driving cars into people, sending bombs to democratic politicians ' homes, , ripping children from their parents and putting them in cages, banning " Muslims" tearing up environmental law, cutting taxes for rich people , closing health clinics for women, creating an even larger deficit and threatening to cut Social Security and Medicare.
It is not Democrats engaged in these activities, it is Trump and the Republican Party .
To suggest that I should be kind and understanding to trump supporters: sorry, just can;t do it.
Not while civil discourse is gone and the country teeters on totalitarianism.
3
It’s no wonder that so many people have changed their voter registration to Unaffiliated. If you don’t identify with either side, and don’t turn your thinking over to whichever party represents your single issue, you won’t take everything so personally. From my perspective, Republicans and Democrats are equally hostile, uninformed and hypocritical.
4
Here at the Trilateral Commission, we're working on a genetically engineered, virulent and lethal strain of bacteria right now. It will only infect and eliminate right-wing, "evangelical Christian" Republican voters; as well as the members of various 'alt-right' hate groups, the Hoover Institute, the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, lifetime members of the NRA, CPAC attendees, the entire RNC, and all of their spawn.
Of course, George Soros is funding the work. Who else?
"Better Things for Better Living..."
I don't wish to see all MAGA folks disappeared from the planet, but I would start with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and all the other shock jocks who feed them daily diets of outrage.
And maybe also be gone with Rupert Murdoch and anyone else who profits from a steady stream of falsehoods.
2
This article from the NYT on Feb 20th on hate groups (mostly right wing) in America. Quite shocking!
“Over 1,000 Hate Groups Are Now Active in United States, Civil Rights Group Says” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/hate-groups-rise.html
Here is the report sited in the NYT article from the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism:
“Right-Wing Extremism Linked to Every 2018 Extremist Murder in the U.S., ADL Finds”
https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/right-wing-extremism-linked-to-every-2018-extremist-murder-in-the-us-adl-finds
The article did say this but with a caveat:
"But the rise in anti-immigrant sentiment had also created “an equal yet opposite reaction,” the Southern Poverty Law Center said. As the number of white supremacist groups rose, so did the number of radical black nationalist groups that espoused anti-white, anti-Semitic or anti-gay and anti-transgender views. The center said the number of those groups had risen to 264 in 2018 from 233 in 2017, but it noted that the influence of black nationalism in mainstream politics was highly limited."
1
On the local news I watched a story of proud confederate supporters replacing a vandalized bust of Robert E Lee in Ft Myers Florida. They were all very proud to be supporters of a treasonous movement in US history. It was sickening. There is no way to reason with people like this.
In my opinion Lee should have been hung as a traitor, not glorified 200 years later.
By the way, Ft Myers is in Lee county, Fl.
I'm an independent. A plague a' both their houses.
2
Only the Times can post numbers that show a 2x larger margin of hate coming from the left, when the raw numbers vs. the percentages are shown, and then have it's dull readership try to blame the problem on the right.
I guess the numerate are reading the WSJ. And I guess the left is going to be shocked, shocked I tell you!, when the right wins yet again. Because yes, the left really is bonkers at this point. Everyone outside of this bubble can see it.
4
The article skirts the issue of hate and intolerance preached from the pulpit. While ‘morality’ is mentioned, what of religious leaders who are the arbiters of this ‘morality’?
Some people believe that Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. Are there two sides, or is this just an evil lie? There were people who fought FOR the continuation of Jim Crow. Were there good people on both sides or was segregation an evil? There is room for discussion on what the immigration policy of the U.S. should be, but is there room on describing immigrants as dirty, diseased, drug dealers, and generally criminal? There is room for discussion on what measures should be taken to protect the environment, but is it not evil to ignore the environmental crisis? There is room to debate economic policy, but is it an exaggeration to call the ownership of only 21% of U.S. wealth by the bottom 90% of people wrong? Are there two sides to buying your child's admission to college? Is it wrong to for Trump to enrich his own business organization using the power of the presidency?
3
My distaste for (not hatred of) Republican politicians (not voters) has nothing to do with the fact they're Republicans, or that I think they're evil people. It has to do with their willingness to do evil things, or more to the point their consistent refusal to do what's right. Like prioritize the public health over the profits of corporate polluters. Or ensuring poor children have enough to eat, even if that means taxing millionaires more heavily. Or accepting the possibility that they'll lose the next election if they defy the NRA and ban assault rifles. They may not be in league with the devil, but they seem quite willing to do his work here on earth.
1
Please include basic information on the survey, like how many people were included and how they were chosen, when you make a statement like this:
"A recent survey asked Republicans and Democrats whether they agreed with the statement that members of the opposition party “are not just worse for politics — they are downright evil.”
If you don't provide that basic information the results of the survey are meaningless to the reader.
2
This article's findings mirror a significant part of US history. As in a sci-fi alien invasion movie, groups of like-minded people swept across the continent, destroying and displacing the first peoples. They established towns and villages, some of which even today are sparse and scattered. These invaders were white and of European descent, and they have maintained their shared cultural mindset in relative isolation.
Now the world is knocking at their doors and they do not like it.
We bemoan polarization as if it were something new. But what is new is the construct that continually reminds us of it. Cell phones, computers and 24/7 media enable and greatly magnify grievances and allow the disparate to band together with unprecedented efficiency.
This generation may be lost, but we must find a way to enlighten our youth, lest we become The Divided States of America.
PS--U-Tube 1968 film short "The Lottery" (Shirley Jackson's short story) gives us insight into the ingrained tribalism that still exists.
1
Maybe things will calm down after Trump is finally ejected, one way or another. The spectacular hysterical abuse coming from the left has been amazing to watch.
Bill Clinton was elected first time by the electoral college. Every time a Rep is elected that way the Dems scream for an end to the EC, which would give every election to NY and CA.
I live in an area which is populated by those fleeing Dem rule. AOC's mother fled NY and now lives in Eustis, FL.
I used to be a Democrat. Now I think both parties serve the donors and not the people. There is fribble over restrooms and pronouns, while Dems ignore the multitudes living on their sidewalks.
@Liz "Bill Clinton was elected first time by the electoral college. Every time a Rep is elected that way the Dems scream for an end to the EC, which would give every election to NY and CA."
Where do you people even get this stuff? Bill Clinton won the popular vote AND the electoral college. So no, he wasn't elected by the electoral college, any more than any/every other president is.
And no, the Dems don't scream for an end to the electoral college every time a Republican is elected. The complaints happen when millions of Americans' votes effectively don't count, and a candidate gets elected with fewer votes, which makes zero sense to anyone with a functioning intellect. And it's only Republicans who get elected that way, against the will of the majority of Americans: twice in the last five elections.
By the way, I'd like for once to hear a Republican explain why your vote should count if you live in North Dakota but not in New York. You're less of an American because of the state you live in?
2
Is it "evil" to mock and discriminate against people because of their race, or religion, or disability, or some other trait or attribute by which someone chooses to define them? Is it "evil" for people to exploit their public office for personal profit, and to brazenly lie to their constituents? Is it "evil" to enable this kind of behavior in others, to act as little Eichmanns, "just following orders"?
Every day we're faced with such questions: evil, sick, corrupt, unethical, criminal? I don't know the answers in every case -- after all, there are so many of them in every news cycle. But these things are not simply politics as usual. For anybody with a conscience, they're unacceptable. And that's why it's so hard to communicate with someone who sees them as not only OK, but laudable.
3
Promotion of hatred and violence comes not only from Republican leadership but from evangelical pulpits. How these people can call themselves Christians is beyond me.
I recommend the Gospels. Jesus would have nothing to do with this bigotry, violence, exclusion, and victim blaming.
3
Let's say we accept the conclusions of this article at face value. Now what? Tell me what candidate is going to bring us closer together.
We are at each others throats. I am not sure how to fix that. But I do have a couple of good starting points. A real jobs program. Good jobs at good pay. Not $12 hour gigs. It is amazing how much better people get along when they are not forced with deciding whether to fix the car or make the mortgage payment.
True healthcare reform. Similar to the first point. It would be nice for a lot of people to have an ailment finally addressed without being concerned about meeting a $5000 out of pocket deductible. Which would mean not getting the car fixed and missing mortgage payments.
As usual, it's the economy, stupid. And for 90+ percent of us, the economy means a good job. Not the stock market.
3
I worked very hard to elect a Democratic Congressman in my heretofore GOP District in 2018.
But I had absolutely no idea that the newly elected Democratic House Speaker would appoint Omar, a well known trasher of Israel and the Jewish people, to the prestigious House Foreign Affairs Cttee,
where she still retains her seat.
Was that a "bait and switch" operation to get me and millions of others to vote Democratic in 2018?
What now?
1
I didn’t know that Democrats believe that Trump and the Republican Party are in league with the devil. I believed that they believed that he was in league with Putin, a believe for which there is a growing accumulation of evidence.
2
I'm a Christian and I see the wisdom and value of Christian thinking strongly in helping to combat extreme partisanship. There are two really important theological points that help
1 All people are made in the image of God and so have worth that is inherent to their being no matter what they do, what is done to them, or what they believe or don't believe.
2 All people are guilty before God of rebelling against him and choosing to worship anything other than God. Thus we all have depraved minds and evil in our hearts. Compared to the goodness of God none us are better than anyone else. The only hope of rising out of that depravity is the grace of God, freely given and completely undeserved.
It is much better I think not to teach tolerance but rather to teach love, especially for your enemies. Why should we tolerate someone we don't like? The Christian would say it is because all are made in the image of God. And why should we forgo harsh judgment on others that don't believe as we do? Because we are all evil and rebellious towards God. We all need his rescue,and none of us deserve it.
I would freely admit that many Christians do not live these ideas or do not live them when it is hardest, with those whom you don't agree with ideologically. But these ideas have the moral weight of the divine, are external to our preferences, and promote life and love, not division. I offer them as transcendent truth especially relevant for our time.
3
"In plain language, the most active voters — those notably “high in cognitive resources” — are the most willing to accept policy positions endorsed by their party, and they are doing so not out of principle, but to affirm their identity as a Democrat or Republican." I am definitely catching a strong whiff of flawed research. Common sense tells us that people "high in cognitive resources" are the least likely to take positions to mark them as part of the in-crowd. If you are high in cognitive resources, you are more likely to be high in critical thinking capabilities. Perhaps the authors of this study aren't as smart as they think they are.
3
@Tim Nelson
I had the same inkling. Seems very counter-intuitive.
@Tim Nelson Critical thinkers can't think of 'everything' critically, so they too, fall back to emotions, fears and frustration at the dysfunction of our system. I'm tired self-described critical thinkers thinking they are above their fellow man.
Rupert Murdoch started as a tabloid journalist who pedaled in shock and outrage because he knew it sold papers. He was one of the few that had no shame so long as he could make a fast buck. He brought that tabloid outlook to television about 20 years ago and we are now seeing the results.
But now it's no longer just Fox news. It's all the so called TV news networks. Until you clean up the outrage on the airways it will continue to poison the culture. What ever happened to peace, love and understanding? That used to be the model didn't it?
1
Rather than thinking in terms of "sides" and who, I like to think in terms of "what." Personally, I believe "racism" is evil, but there are others who don't believe it exists. I separate the person from the construct/institution. l can't judge until an action is taken (maltreatment or violence toward another), and, even then, I try to account for motive.
Two answers to the problem of polarization come quickly to mind:
1) Open primaries, where any voter is allowed to vote in any number of parties' primaries would dilute the ideological extremists' influences on any party;
2) and Ranked Choice Voting (as approved by Maine Voters on November 8, 2016; and as practiced by Australia since 1911) that answers the question "who can we all live with?" That question blunts the need for negative campaigning & often discourages it.
The disclaimer: Even the best designed procedures will not necessarily stop organized hatred. Even Australia has a racism problem. What Open Primaries and Ranked Choice Voting do help with is aiding the saner amongst us to more easily restore civility to the public discourse.
Lastly, we should take a page from the Federal Republic of Germany when it comes to legislative representation: the Germans combine both Proportional Party Representation & Representation by Riding (District) in a system known as Mixed Membership. The net result: two leading political parties --neither of whom ever win a majority of seats in the legislature (or lower house thereof)-- but coalitions of two or three parties are still able to get the necessaries done. So far, no extremist party has ever been invited into a governing coalition.
This arrangement will not necessarily work, if one of the two leading political parties has organized hatred in its platform (see the politics of Gaza after Palestinian elections).
3
More often I see that people of different political persuasions cannot even agree on a common set of facts. This does not bode well for our democracy.
2
I really appreciate this piece. I feel better educated as a consequence of reading it, and it helps me place my own partisanship in clearer perspective.
3
Is it possible that some people's political beliefs and identity are a product of informed investigation of the facts, and not just irrational tribalism?
3
I think you have to recognize the particular mindset of the Baby Boomers. They are characterized as being strongly moral in their view of the world. This is not the case for the Silent or Gen X or Millenials. Things are going to be intensely tribal until this generation passes from the scene. See "The Fourth Turning" by William Strauss and Neil Howe.
1
A system that produce results at the extremes of the political parties and enhances polarization is a system that must be changed to moderate discourse and results. Such a change would not require much. Eliminate the primary elections and change to a nonpartisan general election with ranked choice voting. The parties could still endorse their preferred candidates, however the nature of ranked choice voting would optimize those candidate who appeal to the broadest cross section of voters since being the second or third choice would still have great value to the candidates in the election.
3
We really must view ourselves as one to all continue to get better. I think Gay folks offer a unique asset in this effort. We can help mitigate these separating trends because we, especially we more mature folks, had to develop our strong identifies free from the "major teams" we were not allowed in--so we still strongly don't care as much if we our "different"
Also, as the overwhelming objective evidence demonstrates that presently China and it's leadership, threatens so much dear to us all-freedom, opportunity, etc. throughout our country we can build one unifying idea to help strengthen our shared American identity.-again to counter this trend.
@Tom We may soon realize China as the common enemy that unites us. Russia doesn't have the critical mass.
Tribalism has long existed in America. As an immigrant, I was dismayed by school cliques, and by being ostracized for dissenting, by having the wrong accent, and by being the new kid on the block. Some of it was very petty. Tolerance needs to be taught to children. Last week, I had a very passionate discussion with one of those rare individual from the right who will still debate. I was shocked by some of his arguments. The truth is there somewhere, but it is buried by politicians and the media under tons of spin. I don't want to know just what my side thinks about an issue, I want to know what the other side thinks. Only then can I take an honest position.
3
It is 2019 and we have the power to uninhabit the world.
In 1960 The New Yorker sent Hannah Arendt to cover the Eichmann trial. She told us the truth. We are for the most part banal not good or evil.
Let us not argue the point The New Yorker readers are representative our best and brightest and many registered their displeasure at Arendt's unvarnished truth by cancelling their subscriptions.
The truth is more than inconvenient it is painful and that is why we need our governments to make sure that we should never read, hear or see the truth and that is why Trump is the President.
Truth is painful and serving truth requires dispassion and an honest assessment who and what we are. Hate is easy and provides us the affirmation of our own righteousness or at least it provides us with an identity.
2
To the final paragraph and its subject:
Biology has shown that there is no difference between the humans we would otherwise divide into "races," -- therefore there is no such thing as race -- hence, all humans are a single race.
Where humans differ is in their recent ethnic point of origin -- that is, my recent ancestors lived in Ireland, your recent ancestors lived in Poland, etc.
For African-Americans, the histories of their ethnic points of origin are marred by the brutal dislodging of slavery -- they would know their recent ethnic point of origin if they knew where their African ancestors were taken from. Some learn this through research, as do we all when motivated to do so.
But we must not forget that humans have roamed the earth for millions of years, so the results of whatever DNA research one does reveals only the most recent members of one's ancestral past.
The fact remains that all humans are related to that original human who began walking out of what is now Ethiopia many millennia ago and eventually, through his/her offspring, covered the globe.
If each of us truly accepted this fact, how would it change our psychology and the way we treat one another?
1
@plmcadam
Well, when you consider that 20% give or take, of the US population believes that the Earth is 6,000 years old and took 6 days to create, it kind of throws cold water on any hopes expressed in your comment (which I share, btw...).
I don't think it would change our psychology. The problem with our behavior is not our lack of knowledge. It is that all of us are fractured by the original sin of Adam and Eve. Our desire to degrade others is as much a part of our DNA as our hair color. Our only hope is to be changed by God external to ourselves and our own efforts. Hoping that more information will promote love between people will not work. The problem is the selfish, God rejecting heart in each of us.
Human beings are tribal by nature. We gravitate towards others of like mind, of like nationality, or ethnicity, or economic position, or belief system, or political ideology, etc.
We are a large country with a hugely diverse population. ‘Diversity’ is valuable and desirable, up to a point...after which the situation degrades into a cacophony of competing, discordant interests. And that’s what we’ve got now. There’s nothing unifying our citizenry. Too much diversity...
2
I find these polls to be more useless entertainment than thoughtful enlightenment.
Since Nixon, past political performance from both parties proves that much more tangible "evil" has been generated by Republican politicians. Nixon's elongation of the Vietnam war in order to win reelection; the Powell memo, rallying anti-union (read ALEC) legislation for the past 40 years; the adoption of a disproven supply side economic policy; severe restriction of Roe v Wade - the list is long.
The Dems are certainly not blameless, but perhaps more voters on the left have been hurt by politicians on the right than vice-versa, thus engendering these results. Ultimately though, there's not enough context here to gain any worthwhile insight.
3
I think that the major aspects that are driving partisanship today are the issues, stakes, and pocket-sized global communication devices we all have. Income inequality, globalization, abortion, Iraq war, racism, misogyny, climate change, etc. Yes these issues have always existed but I think today, due to the media and internet we are all much more aware of the world-changing impacts of these issues and the parts all of can play. Like the US Civil war, the immediacy of the stakes force us to chose sides. Many of these issues are linked. How one feels about racism and the patriarchy, I sense, will reveal who one trusts and aligns with regarding climate change, the causes of inequality and so on. It seems that now human civilization stands at multiple precipices. As "wokeness" grows for one group, the out-members necessarily become aware of their similarities and cling together creating a strong counter-force without deliberately deciding to do so. I think the same principles that charge batteries also charge partisanship, aka socio-political batteries. Unlike batteries however, the charges may not be equal, i.e. there can be more non-trump supporters than trump supporters. I think that as long as we have access to the world in our pockets, can find like-minded people, and are faced with increasingly threatening and destabilizing social/economic issues, the partisanship will continue to grow.
1
@some guy: Every single issue represents energy stored into a polarity. This is what gives combinatorial complexity to politics and proliferates political parties in tribal nations.
I disagree with the basic premise of this article. Partisanship cannot take you to a lethal space if that is not where you were inclined to go in the first place. But I do worry about what I would be willing to do if Donald Trump wins a second term...
3
Didn't one of the founding fathers (Washington?), distressed by vitriolic partisanship among other revered founders, doubt that the United States could last twenty years? The anger is not new. As for today, I think we may be worrying too much about hatred/partisanship, as opposed to the lies coming from the Republican leadership. While it's troubling to read that people claim to hate each other, one could look at some of the statistics the other way around. Assuming the quoted poll was carefully done (and I doubt it), 86% of Republicans do NOT want any violence against the other side. There's a huge difference between joining a heated discussion and seriously wanting a civil war.
1
@Barbara: Violent language lowers inhibition of violence.
As a former Republican, now Independent, I disagree with this article. I regularly see nasty hateful social media posts and emails from right wing friends and acquaintances, fixated on Obama, Pelosi, immigrants and the ACA. It is very rare that I see this sort of thing from liberal friends. And indeed many of my friends are centrist anyway and usually support policies that reflect a moderate view.
11
@JMWB
Funny, I live in NYC and see the exact opposite.
Could it be that our geographic and political coordinates have something to do with it?
I fully agree with the article.
1
Interesting, but frustrating. I detect and disagree with a conceptual equivalency inherent in this research.
The combination of weirdly inconsistent positions in party platforms is powerful supporting evidence of the conclusions reached by these researchers. For example, how do government limiting, freedom loving republicans lose those principles when it comes to women's reproductive decisions? The inconsistency doesn't drive the party into factions, which needs explanation.
However, there are forces of nature that do not respond to party faction or human belief. Physics does not change when some group disagrees with it. For example, the well understood human effects on climate do not change because some people, through group identity, choose to disbelieve the science. The problem is, giving their beliefs equal footing in the debate over public policy eviscerates the possibility of responding effectively to the problem.
Climate change is not the only victim of this equivalency. Numerous subjects, from women's rights, environmental policy, water policy, land use, to squishy subjects like campaign finance, punches large holes in the conceptual basis of this research.
It is not valid to equate all groups core beliefs. It is categorically fair and appropriate to reject the conspiracy theories animating climate deniers, flat earth believers, Obama birthers, private militia supporters, women's rights destroyers, and fascists of various stripes. They're just wrong.
5
Almost 60 years ago The New Yorker sent Hannah Arendt to cover the Eichmann trial. Then as now the New Yorker spoke to an audience that was thirsty for truth and nuanced information that light not darkness on the events of the day. The observation by Arendt that Eichmann was not evil but the most banal of men did not please all New Yorker subscribers.
It is 2019 and the truth of Arendt's observation is painfully obvious as we watch the greatest nation that ever was self destruct because of banality.
On Saturday I will attend our Historical Society Tea and I will suppress my desire to tell the story of Ireland's starvation and genocide of its bottom quintile in what we continue to call the Irish Potato Famine.
The needless death by starvation of one million souls and the sale of one million more into the squalor of the cities of the new industrial age is well documented . The words of The Economist are still here telling us why Ireland's poor and hungry should not be fed. If we don't want to read 175 year old Economists on the web we need only watch FOX news, read The Wall street Journal or listen to the voices expressing America's moral authority.
America is dying not because it is evil but because it refuses to understand it was great when it believed it was a force for good. When the ships laden with food arrived to feed Ireland's hungry they were turned away not because the parliament was evil but because we are banal and then as now it's the economy. Greed is not good.
4
Mr. Edsall's columns have become a part of my weekly reading, and this piece is a prime example of what appeals. Not the only attractive feature of his writing but certainly one of the bigger ones is his modus operandum of quoting judiciously and -- for the oped form -- at length from researchers. Three phrases from today's quotations are sticking with me, namely "coalition psychology," "evolved strategies," and the ever popular "hard-wired." These ominously evoke the ideas of fate and original sin, which of course does not mean that they are false. Just what the mere citizen is to make of such research is something of a mystery to me, though. Perhaps we are to be brought to a momentary but altogether healthy and chastened stop, as in Greek tragedy. Research does not suppose its influence to end there, however. As with climate science, of which virtually none of us is master, we are called upon to be guided. What does the research suggest about the ways in which people respond to such a call? Maybe the comments on this thread provide a tentative answer.
1
@Fred Ellis: One commits "original sin" to get born. That explains all misfortunes.
I agree we have become strongly polarized into camps of "us versus them" for biological, psychological, political, sociological and economic reasons. And we truly are 'a group-based species.' But I disagree with researcher Hibbing who "dismissed the argument that people have become tribal because of changes in the media environment.” We have become EXTREMELY tribalized by media's failure to challenge misinformation and hateful, divisive viewpoints infecting public discourse for decades now--from Rush Limbaugh 80's talk radio to Fox News from the 90's on to the unlimited, unfiltered hate and deception spewing like a fire hose 24-7 on media platforms everywhere we turn today. I blame the media for abandoning civic responsibility as our "fourth estate", sacrificing investigative journalism and the pursuit of truth on the altar of greed and info-tainment.
3
*In plain language, the most active voters — those notably “high in cognitive resources” — are the most willing to accept policy positions endorsed by their party, and they are doing so not out of principle, but to affirm their identity as a Democrat or Republican.*
I guess that explains why I don't want trumpsters to die a violent death, beyond the fact that some of them are family members I know and love.
Though I consider myself a progressive Democrat, mostly because when I tell people that they immediately get a general idea of my politics on most issues, my own education in history, science and economics has informed my own opinions about policy, some of which would be 'unorthodox' (to say the least) to the typical Democrat.
Example: I believe that properly, broadly and equitably implemented, a flat tax is the best and fairest way for the government to raise revenue (with the possible exception of a VAT).
@Mike: Marginal value theorists define "fair" taxation differently. According to that view, taxation is "fair" if all taxpayers feel equally deprived when paying their last marginal dollar of tax. That is the rationale for marginal tax rates to rise with income. This is an issue between "left" and "right".
2
sorry but i have no desire to be tolerant of racism, sexism, climate change denial, unchecked military spending, gutting social programs, and giving gazillionaires tax cuts. None of us should be tolerant of those things. If that makes me closed minded then so be it, would rather be a decent human being any day of the week.
11
The byline says, "Lethal partisanship is taking us into dangerous territory," then the article goes into whataboutism; i.e., "both sides do it."
Let's talk about the lethal part. According to a 2017 report on NPR.org, "In the past 10 years when you look at murders committed by domestic extremists in the United States of all types, right-wing extremists are responsible for about 74 percent of those murders."
https://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/533255619/fact-check-is-left-wing-violence-rising
That pretty much says it all.
8
The data discussed here is all about opinions. What about objective facts? I realize I am hopelessly pre-post-modern in believing there is an objective reality out there, but I do. Let us assume that most Americans, whether they believe in God or not, accept the basics of the Judeo-Christian tradition as the standard of moral behavior. What has the Republican Party done since it became politically dominant in 1980? It has engineered three major tax cuts for rich people,done nothing for anybody else, and been particularly nasty to poor people. That clearly violates the moral standards that are central to both the Old Testament and the Gospels. Republicans are objectively evil. I'm not sure how to generalize from collective behavior to individuals, but I'd say anyone who votes for a Republican these days is violating the moral norms of our society. Whether God will get these people some day is beyond my comprehension.
2
With the exception of a handful of highly developed human beings, everyone on earth has a delusional ego, a non-existent "self". But some are much bigger than the others.
The high octane egoistic selfish people crave money, possession, fame, recognition, publicity, power. They never admit their mistakes, lie and cheat to cover up their shortcomings, thin-skinned and can't stand criticism. They are bombastic and opinionated, prejudiced and xenophobic. They don't much like new ideas, thus "conservative", more "fundamentalist". Sound like anyone you know?
Birds of a feather do flock together. The Me-Me egoists find company in each other. Super selfish people can't stand hanging out with those who are less selfish. They think of them as "losers". It is no accident Rand Paul, a libertarian, find Donald Trump a kindred spirit.
As partisan politics go, Republicans and the Libertarians embrace more selfish policies, often disguised under personal freedom, small government, more competition, free enterprise, etc. But they are just fake covers.
Democrats as a group endorse less selfish policies, compassion towards those less able to fend for themselves, more sharing. They tend to be better educated and more tolerant of new ideas. Nevertheless, they are still average humans with egos too.
Where do "hatred" come from? The delusional "Self" has likes & dislikes. Whatever it does not like are candidate for hatred, to be rid off. Entering "MAGA" zone.
1
People on both sides find it difficult to accept that a person can hold "liberal" and "conservative" views on issues from abortion to immigration at the same time. In reality most of us do hold a mixture of views. We are not completely conservative or liberal. Speaking strictly for myself, I have not met very many "pure" conservatives or liberals when it comes politics or daily life. Our opinions and convictions are shaped by our life experiences, i.e. what works(ed) for us. It's why there can be people who are anti-abortion and pro birth control or anti immigration but pro on granting asylum to some people.
These differences should force us to work together. Since the 1980s they haven't. I do blame Nixon and Watergate for much of the political idiocy that passes for governing now. Since Nixon our government has become completely dysfunctional to the point where it's dangerous for our country's continued survival. People don't want to look at both sides of a problem for fear of being considered elitists. How is trying to see both sides of a problem elitist? It doesn't mean that a person has no morals or can't decide; it means that they may be able to understand where both sides are coming from.
The GOP is winning by default because of what they advocate: racism, bigotry, selfishness, and lies to further their agenda. The Democrats tear themselves apart. In the meantime we have a country that is not working.
3
We no longer have even the appearance of a common purpose in America. Neoliberalism and unfettered capitalism have driven a wedge into the populace dividing us into disparate camps of haves and have-nots. The result is a pernicious desperation in which we circle our respective wagons.
When people have the essentials – living-wage jobs, healthcare, education – divisions are tempered. There is no need to scapegoat those outside your tribe for your circumstances.
Self-serving capitalism – and the propaganda that it is a magical, self-regulating system that will maximize collective well-being – has no conscience. It is all about financial victory even at the price of wider defeat for society at large. So the real division we have is between corporations who hoard the collectively generated profits and everyone else who must be content with the crumbs.
Other aggravators of division are American character traits like belief in myths (“of the people…”) that blind us to uncomfortable facts, and an unwavering faith in individual rights over collective welfare – even if it means voting against our own best interests.
The only thing that will temper our divisions is if we reign in capitalism and level the playing field as much as possible. When you have the safety net of a job, a roof over your head, and healthcare – and the confidence that they will remain in place – you aren’t going to care so much about whether your neighbor goes to the same church, or even goes to church.
3
Many of the comments here, saying “No no, only the Republicans are evil!”, seem to illustrate Edsal’s point. Understand, I’m as liberal as anybody, I just can’t demonize the conservatives. I know many Trump supporters, and they’re no wheres close to evil. How they can support the barbarian and his evil ideology escapes me. But they, personally, are good employees, good citizens, loyal friends. I’d tend to ascribe it to group consciousness or the power of propaganda, but that doesn’t seem adequate, these are not stupid people. I’m stumped.
And disparaging “the other” isn’t confined to conservatives, as indicated by these comments. Even Hillary Clinton, whom I affirmatively supported in the primaries and the election, saw fit to call Trump’s supporters “deplorables.” That was incorrect and unhelpful.
This is a mystery that’s currently unsolved, but solving it may be necessary to restoring our democracy.
7
"the coalitions clustering at the poles are not tribes in the classical anthropological sense. Today’s left- and right-wingers for the most part aren’t inventing myths of shared blood"
White nationalism?
"and common ancestry"
Cries of "We will not be erased" in Charlottesville?
"or binding together in ritual ordeals"
'LOCK HER UP!'
"or blending in appearance with a common uniform"
MAGA hats?
Check again, Professor.
3
"Just over 42 percent of the people in each party view the opposition as “downright evil.”
Maybe I am proving the point of this column but while the antimosity we observe in political discourse may be influenced by tribalism, partisanship, or other forms of bias, isn't it remotely possible that one of the sides that society seems to have sorted itself into is objectively amoral, hypocritical, militantly ignorant, self righteous, and just plain old rotten? And is deserving of the derision and scorn of the other side?
7
I'm not an an American and I can definitely say the Republican party has gone off the rails. You cannot say both sides are equivalent when one's idea is organizing nationwide(worldwide) protest marches and the other one's is sending pipe bombs. Right wing media has lying/offensive hosts on Fox to outright insane ones like Alex Jones. Other news sources can be completely factual and come off as left leaning because as NYT columnist Paul Krugman put it "Facts have a well known liberal bias"
6
Can someone ask questions as to rationality and irrationality of participants and their media viewing habits? One side is crazy and the other tries to keep the ship afloat. One side bothered Clinton with impeachment proceedings as told by McConnell. Then McConnell turns around and says Democrats are doing the same.
Looking at the data and the facts: one party is crazy. This party is ignorant of other cultures and strives beyond reason to keep their "white privilege."
One party uses fear for motivation, triggering the animal instincts in those prone to be affected: the wealthy and those that have lost their jobs to globalization. This is the same party that uses code-words for racism to taxes: neighborhood schools and death tax.
The wealthy cling together as do those that are poor and ignorant. Then you have all the people that think baby-killing (another code-word meant to trigger a visceral response) means they overlook all the other issues.
Then you have the lack of any ethics and all the corruption today.
One side supports violence in their meetings and will not condemn the racism that stains a lot of their members. And this party has the audacity to call the Democrats antisemitic....
The research presented here in this article is to make us all feel good. But this research is non-sense; it is not real world.
I myself tried to be a moderate and see both sides but you can not and stay sane. You either love the rational or the irrational!
2
These people are destroying my country. How do you think I should feel about it? Maybe these trump true believers think that being a serf is a good career choice, I do not.
4
What an interesting column! No mention of Trump. No compare and contrast of, say, FOX versus MSNBC. No mention of Trump rallies.
4
It’s nothing more than marketing.
Both parties play the identity politics card to gain voters, and both use the same technique. The words used sound different to people in the street, so they fall right for it.
One side, if you identify as a patriot who loves America, guns, marriage is a man and a woman, America first, prolife, Jesus is life, then you are with us.
One side, if you identify as (anything really, except straight), love the world and not America, marriage is any one with any species, socialism is your thing, pro abortion, and are smarter, more intelligent, educated and cultured than ‘them’, then you are with us.
Simple marketing, you promote your brand, and people line up to buy. Like Samsung and Apple die hard fans, at the end it’s just an overpriced phone, but both sides will curse the other out based on their choice. Marketing.
And violence? Not happening. The most the DEMS managed in 2016 was a march on 5th Ave with kids screaming ‘my body my choice’, in 2020? Nothing of substance either.
The reds are armed, the blues use strong words.
Nothing has happened, nothing will happen.
1
@AutumnLeaf
One sides "marketing" includes violence and threats of violence. We know which side.
1
It's a shame Americans are so divided, especially when the majority really do agree on many important issues. Hate is an easy emotion to experience, especially when leadership is so criminal. Oh well, that's the human primate.
2
We are a group-based species; we all want to be accepted by our groups. We practice public virtue signalling to show our loyalty to our group; social media and the internet have vastly increased our opportunities to practice virtue signalling.
But what are our groups? Are groups are defined by a shared set of ideas and values, in theory, but in practice they are defined by who is outside them, who is "the other", who is the enemy. Groups are more resistant to changes in the other than to changes in their accepted ideas and values.
In the 20th century, we had better enemies. There were imperialists exploiting the people of the world, fascists starting world wars, godless communist totalitarians taking the freedom of their people and threatening ours as well. The presence of these enemies allowed the American people to comfortably form a group, despite our many differences. I may not have much in common with that farmer in Kansas, but we both know Hitler is evil, for instance. With the end of the cold war, the groups that held Americans together fell apart, not so much because ideas and morals changed, but because our enemies disappeared.
We were left with the groups that divide us as a nation, and it is those groups and sets of enemies that dominate now. When we condemn our enemies we must remember that we are practicing virtue signalling, not acting for some greater good. We should tone down your naturally tribal behavior, for what is truly a public good.
1
Shoot me an email when this so-called violent uprising happens. Or send it in whatever digital format you're too busy typing out furious messages about the nebulous deep-state trying to take your guns away and forcing abortions on you. In other words, we're all far too distracted by one another to form any sort of cohesive violence against the opposition. So, ironically, maybe you actually have social media to thank for us NOT being in a second civil war right now.
3
"Lethal partisanship is taking us into dangerous territory..."
"...is taking..."? Where have you been? We're already there, and have been since Rush Limbaugh, with "talent on load from God", broadcast his first talk show program - 1984, KFBK, Sacramento. That's 35 years ago. How did you manage to breathe with your head buried in the sand for so long?
Since 1984 we've been under the thumb of Brother Limbaugh's Thought Police, and they're all heavily armed. It's the successful result of a "Divide and Conquer" agenda, and one of the oldest military tactics in the book of totalitarian history.
The correct phrase, therefore, is "...we have been taken...".
Yes indeed, this work is done.
2
I mean, I just don't understand Ed --- weren't all these people today 'sesame street kids'...u know, raised on PBS's premiere TV show, that is broadcast non-stop.
Maybe, after identifying themselves as sesame street kids', everybody grows up to learn how foolish the show was and begin to overreact so negatively that the word 'hate' is now thrown around so causally!!! Best... PJS
Isn't 350 million people too many to have a nuanced view of the other 175 million?
Looks like, for efficiency's sake, we have to be obtuse, hyperbolic and hateful.
If our two-party system were four, would we have more or fewer people to hate?
First of all, the use of data is flawed, or at least the data is misrepresented. The tenor of the article makes it seem like everyone is in one group or the other: EVERYONE. But, in fact, everyone isn't. Second of all, to talk in such binary terms is extremely dangerous. It strengthens the notion that there are only two sides that matter. There is also the feeling, although not spoken, that this has always been so: hasn't been. Not so long ago, there was criticism that many Americans just weren't interested politics at all. Now there is also the criticism that in fact Americans are isolated from one another. Historically Americans have belonged to many groups: church, Scouts, schools, alumni, neighborhood, charity, book clubs, etc. etc. Within these groups, there was rarely universal agreement and there was rarely any kind of exodus based on disagreement. I think the authors have missed a great deal of nuance.
2
There are some fascinating thoughts here, more along lines of conclusions rather than explanation. As perceptive as Mr. Edsell's delving into the academic social science consistently turns out to be, it does not go without argument how the connection between personal psychology and political ideology is to be convincingly made — other than as an apparently obvious (but ultimately unsustained) manner. All of these observations rely on a proposition that what people (leaders, citizens, casual observers) say is not what they mean. That is the arrogance of social scientists and it is a defect in the way they set up their investigations and report their interpretations. Please consider all the valid forms of inquiry — philosophy, political theory (except for endorsing Carl Schmitt's freighted friend-enemy model, and some casual references to Machiavelli) — that are pre-empted by a supposed psychological-biological paradigm here. Also, perhaps most importantly, it might be good to recall and further investigate the proposition that the current political conditions with regard to partisanship very closely follow the normative status of political parties that lay behind the empirical political scientists' formative work in the last century — party loyalty, party discipline, party ideological coherence, party fundamentality as to electoral politics, which (for them) was what "politics" was all about. Not governance or service to the civic domain. A perversion of the European model.
1
The Times Picks tend to prove the point Edsall and his sources are making. The commenters whose point is to exercise their personal spleen draw far more "recommendations" than the commenters whose bile is held in check.
2
This is why a project like Changing the Conversation Together is so important. See more here: https://www.ctctogether.org/
this is how fascism generates antifascism and both engage in violence. this is governments fail. read hannah arendt on the fall of the weimar republic or tacitus on the roman republic
49
@Ellen Silbergeld
Hannah Arendt made the point that what breeds fascism is not so much its popularity as an ideology as it is the degradation of truth.
6
@Ellen Silbergeld
They are not equal.
I watched in real time in Charlottesville when the police stood by and either did nothing or assisted the fascists. The antifa people were the only thing between peaceful protesters and injury or death. The result would have been much worse if they had not been there.
Nor can you equate the allies with Hitler/Mussolini/etc.
9
@Susan Anderson
Indeed, the clerics profusely thanked the Antifa for saving them from injury. Yet many on both sides excoriated the Antifa.
But only a soft brain would say that violence against violence, or hate against hate is equivalent to Violence or Hate. Kinda like blaming the Warsaw Jews for rising against the Nazis.
Or that "there's blame on both sides."
2
Some of the comments here seem to prove the point made by the article by immediately rationalizing and re-affirming that they are on the right team.
Quoting from Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind:
"Morality binds and blinds. It binds us into ideological teams that fight each other as though the fate of the world depended on our side winning each battle. It blinds us to the fact that each team is composed of good people who have something important to say".
Haidt's research also revealed that the process starts with an emotional impulse that tilts us in one direction or the other. The human mind then goes on a continuous intellectual quest to rationalize the tilt.
1
This phenomenon derives from voicing political views (and people being people, will always vary) in moral terms (which connote a sacrosanct value to most people). Conservatives mastered this approach to politics decades ago, and to fight fire with fire, liberals have more recently done the same.
That being said, I am not certain what might help the situation, but I think Pete Buttigieg has a good idea that's worth a try: some form of mandatory public service that would make people from different backgrounds and beliefs work together for a common good - and not just military service. The optimist in me says this is a great idea; the pessimist in me says, rich parents will buy their kids' out of the responsibility (as in, see today's college admission scandal headlines).
1
Tribalism does exist. I have progressive friends who are in a bubble and instead of trying to understand the source of trumpism, condemn those who voted against Hillary. What is also true and not fully explored in the article is the fact that the issue of the man in the White House is a moral one. We have had republicans in power in the past and it was politics as usual. To oppose politically was fair game. The finger pointing, blame game and accusations of liberals being anti American started with the republicans. Birtherism started with republicans. Equating the poor with “welfare queens” started with republicans. Courtship of white supremacy started with republicans. Denying climate change is a Republican trait. Changing the platform to favor Russia is a Republican action. The list goes on and on. We should not equate moral outrage and attempts to shed light and name names as simple tribalism linked to our psychological wiring.
1
As humans, we take pride in molding our circumstances by directing our behavior with conscious thoughts: editorials, votes, markets, or dogmas. While this potential should be at the core of all our striving, I think we let our pride hide the deeper reality that more often our circumstances are doing the directing, and that our behavior is less conscious than we think.
There IS a common theme to the issues that are driving us toward polarity, tribalism, and hate. Abortion, global warming, welfare, immigration, sexuality, inequality, ...all relate somehow to the growing stress of living in a world with more people than we now need or can support. A world-wide claustrophobia is driving us to cling to what we have and to look with dread upon anyone or anything that forces change. It has happened before, but never on such a crowded planet. "Go west, young man," no longer applies.
It is a morbid but necessary thought, that all of our issues relate to who would be more vulnerable if things fell apart: rich or poor, dark or light, local or foreign, faithful or thoughtful ...us or them. We all want to survive, if it turns out that everyone can't. So, like swimmers in a stormy ocean we push down on those around us.
How to get out of this hole? Stop digging! Bring our numbers back in proportion to our resources ...not by killing, but by feeding and educating each other, so that we may procreate responsibly and get through this claustrophobic bubble of overblown humanity.
These are sad statistics- violence should always be a last resort and virtually never helps (see modern day Israel/Palestinian conflict).
We all have to realize that most people mean well and are good. Some are more easily influenced and consider personal financial success the only means to measure the success of their elected officials. That's a reasonable criteria if you're literally worried about where your next meal is coming from (which is not very common).
This article employs a false equivalency, attributing the extreme level of hatred to both right and left in equal measure. This ignores the decades-long attack politics employed by the right and Republicans:
- the painting of Jimmy Carter as "weak" for not having rescued the Iranian hostages, while "tough guy" Reagan employed illegal measures to trade arms for the hostages even before he was elected;
- the "Willie Horton" smear of Dukakis;
- the impeachment of Bill Clinton;
- the smearing of decorated hero Max Cleland;
- "Swiftboating" of Kerry
- "Birtherism" attacks on Obama;
- Racism and xenophobia employed in almost every election;
- and of course the too numerous to list here attacks by Trump.
Where is anything even remotely similar done by Democrats and the left? That sound you hear are crickets in the silence.
Of course there is a great divide, rooted in tribalism, as each side withdraws further into their own and away from the "others", and this is based upon our shared human defense mechanism of banding together to face the thing(s) we fear. And of course religion - beginning with our earliest shamans and priests - used this to gain power and control over the masses. As long as the "others" can be demonized, and attacks on them is not only justified but a "holy" duty. We would go a long way towards acceptance and peace if we got rid of religion.
Spirituality however can be the answer. If we truly acted in accordance with spiritual principles, love conquers hate.
1
It's interesting to me to see so many liberals, among whom I count myself, condemn conservatives for this state of affairs. The post about how hateful conservatives are indeed evil is as frightening as the article's stat about wishing others would die. So much for a supposedly Christian country on both sides. Where is the forgiveness or the ability to suspend judgment? Where is the willingness to see other people as having a right to their point of view? Yes, even those who would take away a woman's right to choose abortion, even those who condemn poor people to immense suffering. I am tempted to call them evil but that is a simplification. If they were the devil they would be easier to handle.
1
Evil actions are things we do in opposition to God's vision for humanity (whichever god you prefer). That includes building up our group at the expense of others.
Unfortunately, scarcity makes it harder to make good choices.
But choosing to hate your opponents rarely gains you anything material, and always makes you poorer in spirit.
It's the age-old story of humanity.
Aside from the base hate mongering represented in the photo accompanying this article - is this struggle not also between rules, fairness, and scarcity?
With rules - the myriad of issues surround taxes, offshoring, and corporate tax rates could fall into this category.
Taxes could also be a matter of fairness (considering our debt is financing the tax cut) but what about healthcare costs in this country. Is it fair that the US won't negotiate drug prices or that people are dying because they can't afford medicine? Whom do the rules actually benefit?
Then scarcity - it's only going to get worse. I will no longer accept is denial of what is happening to our planet. Yet we have friends who live near the ocean. They could care less about the overall planet but sure as heck don't want drilling off their section of beach. The earth does not segment itself that way. And what exactly is wrong with reducing plastic usage. I didn't think straws were a 'libbie' thing until recently.
Finally - is it fair that corporations with more resources or billionaires are the ones who get to decide our future - thereby ruining it for the rest of us?
And there is a cohort in this country whose sole purpose is to wipe out the other side. It has been carefully nurtured for 30 years now.
1
The hatred emanating from my Republican neighbors--and elected representatives--is staggering. On a town hall call last year, I heard Rep. Tom Rice, R-SC, District 7, chided a questioner for "clearly" being a Democrat who "somehow" being allowed in, as if Mr. Rice were not supposed to represent all people in his district.
I can't speak with one of my neighbors about politics, which he brings up, without his saying "what about the Clintons and Obama," when the subject has nothing to do with them. Then he says he really doesn't know much about politics.
A few days ago, a group of MAGA hat wearers accosted Senator Kamala Harris at a small meet-and-greet in Myrtle Beach. A video clip showed one yelling at the senator.
People need to stop talking and start listening. That would go a long way toward mending rifts between neighbors.
1
Fact is that Fox News and the GOP have been telling their voters that Democrats ARE absolute evil for two decades now. There is NO equivalent of this behavior on the part of Democrats.
Secondly, what GOP voters believe about Obama, Democrats and their voters is (as a consequence of the massive GOP investment in fake news) largely false, whereas what Democratic voters believe about what the GOP does in DC is largely correct.
The GOP is de facto destroying America today, and to an unprecedented extent.
Being "partisan" by definition means rejecting or ignoring facts and that truth, in order to impose lies.
Bipartisanship is only passed when both parties accept the objective truth, scientific studies, CBO scores etc. as common ground. The GOP and GOP alone systematically cultivates rejecting the truth.
So they, and they alone, are responsible for the current irrational and dangerous hatred.
2
Reading the many comments provided reinforces my opinion. The "divide" essentially flows from a belief in inclusion versus exclusion. I find it hard to accept as "moral" or "good" a stance that excludes Blacks, Muslims, LGBTQ's, Jews and Latino immigrants. Openly racist and sexist views are wrong and immoral. I do not hate those who harbor such attitudes, but I will continue to speak out against them.
1
I don't know what I find more depressing, this article about the demonization of the political "other," or the reflexive response to it by so many liberal readers who protest "The data must be wrong, because we're the tolerant, open-minded, kind Good ones. It's the conservatives who are the evil, close-minded Bad ones!"
2
It seems to be forgotten that these very same Magans who called us 'evil' & 'unamerican' for dissenting Dubya's Iraq War, all ended up on the absolutely wrong side of history.
Yet here they are again, & not a thought to the fact that they were fully fooled by Bush's lies then, or any caution about being fooled by Trump's lies now.
Nobody stuck it to Hannity about his backing of Bush to the bitter end, so he's free to pull the same shenanigans on his followers now.
There is no redemption for backing the Iraq war so vehemently, viciously & unapologetically. The devastation continues to this day indefinitely.
But failing to see the folly & piling on yet again, doubling down on vilifying opposition after being so catastrophically wrong, is a profound public derangement.
Republicans have proven themselves to be unrepentantly dangerous. And they have all the guns.
3
Trump says all Democrats are anti-Semitic, says journalists are the enemy of the people, and scapegoats immigrants from the bully pulpit of the presidency. He has lowered the bar of American political discourse, and the GOP is complicit in his unpresidential behavior. They should be held accountable for amoral policies and decisions at the ballet box, not with violence.
3
Trump's antics are easily outweighed by the animosity displayed towards each other by Republicans and Democrats. From a Shakespearean perspective, the interesting angle is the puritanical zeal of Democrats baying for Trump's head because of his moral decrepitude. These people must lead extraordinary lives, free from temptation and sin.
The center of the problem is Trump. Anyone who supports him is pretty close to evil. End of story.
2
Decent people are vulnerable to vipers like Trump because they choose not to battle him in the gutter. The Democratic candidate in 2020 who has the best chance of victory is the one who will, in the words of the Obamas, go high when Trump goes low. That's our only hope of restoring integrity to the presidency.
Yes, some Dems probably hate the other side, but make no mistake: today's conservatism is built almost entirely on anger, resentment, and hate. Most of it is directed at liberals, and there seems to be no limit to it. I appreciate that the writer tries to be evenhanded here, but let's drop the false equivalence.
1
both sides share blame of course, but i dont recall the Right hounding and harassing politicians at restaurants. also, college campus violence is now about 99% from the left.
the absolute hysteria in the streets, and one celebrity after another vowing to leave the country after trump was elected has never been seen among the Right when a dem was elected.
the labeling of the president as a fascist and racist never seeped into mainstream among the right- always fringe. today its mainstream in the left, as well as overt antisemitism.
in other words, the left has a far bigger job fixing this problem than the right. not even close.
40
@Ari Weitzner The right is too busy marching with tiki torches, running down and murdering innocent demonstrators and shooting up churches and synagogues to have any time to get upset with dt supporters in restaurants.
33
@Ari Weitzner: So that gathering in Charlottesville was a debutante ball? The little dustup in Pittsburgh - just welcoming folks to the neighborhood? The Oklahoma City bombing - all in good fun. And the current President's vicious racist attacks on the legitimacy of our last President - hey, can't anybody take a joke?
Ari, pick up a mirror and take a long hard look.
53
@Ari Weitzner
You prove the author's point in how you frame your statement, which I find ridiculous as a member of the "other side". Too bad we can't actually discuss anything here to get past it.
27
The author makes a comparison as if both sides have equal value - history will show, as it has with slavery, that there was a wrong side and a right side
135
@Len
‘The author makes a comparison as if both sides have equal value’
And that is the point.
Liberals like you believe conservatives like them have no value.
And conservatives believe you are a gutless spineless social justice warrior sitting comfy behind a keyboard.
See how that works?
So long as one sides believes the other to lack in worth as a human being, we will have a divide here.
Which side is right? Ask yourself, are you willing to admit you are wrong? Neither are ‘them’.
11
@AutumnLeaf you miss the point.
both sides share blame of course, but i dont recall the Right hounding and harassing politicians at restaurants. also, college campus violence is now about 99% from the left.
the absolute hysteria in the streets, and one celebrity after another vowing to leave the country after trump was elected has never been seen among the Right when a dem was elected.
the labeling of the president as a fascist and racist never seeped into mainstream among the right- always fringe. today its mainstream in the left, as well as overt antisemitism.
in other words, the left has a far bigger job fixing this problem than the right. not even close.
1
@AutumnLeaf So you believe that there is nothing wrong in slavery ? Seriously, you are going to find value in owning slaves ?
That is a perfect example of an issue where there is a clear right and wrong, yet the Republican party is full of people who wish to return to the days of owning slaves.
How can you believe that both sides of that argument have equal value ?
7
This piece seems to be more about social republicans and democrats. Don't forget about the Scientific method, peer review and accountability by knowledgeable others. We don't need to be biased when we pay so many people to find answers. And usually the knowledge that gets to us as members of the public have lots of support that has adjusted over time to new data. While numbers aren't everything, we are including being human when we frame our studies. I'm very liberal, but just follow the numbers and the accountable people that we have. As far as social conservatives, it seems like a me-first approach is the way to go, specifically trying to preserve their culture and power (not necessarily be accurate). As far as social liberals, it seems like others-first approach, fine tuning (yes it's an annoying process) to the lessons learned from those professionals because we don't realize our own biases easily.
1
Way back when emails were the favored method of sharing political thoughts and fears, jokes, and random chain mail-like solicitations for support of candidates or legislation, I received many through friend circles mainly revolving around my ex-husband. There were racist jokes about the Obamas, lies about the ACA, altered photos and jokes about Speaker Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and virtually any other female leader or Democrat. There were bigoted, xenophobic jokes about immigrants and horrible statements about the Islamic faith. All of these were being circulated among a group of Republican voters that eventually became Facebook accounts filled with the hateful shared memes and fake news and other such garbage that led to the election of President Donald Trump in 2016.
I am a Democrat. I know a whole lot of Democrats. I served on a parish Democratic committee for four years. Not once, not a single time have I received mass circulated emails full lies and ugliness about Republicans or their policies. Not once.
This is not “both sides” .
3
Barbara Tuchmann wrote an article on the NYT Magazine years ago in which she analogized nations’ saber rattling and the increased danger of war this represents to an individual’s desire to wear a coat. Trying to convince someone to forego a coat is more difficult than raising the temperature in the room. The hostility we’re experiencing is a ‘coat’ we’ve put on to protect ourselves from the ‘cold,’ the fear we feel. Paranoia is the dominant mode, especially since right wing paranoia about liberal elites met left wing paranoia about Trumpian populism. What will assuage all this fear? Not Trump, I fear!
There is a potentially instructive observation that Japanese culture has historically emphasizes the importance of the common good, the greater good, an allegiance to society as a whole before individual egos and gratification. While Japan is essentially culturally homogenous and America not nearly so, there are unifying elements that can be leveraged to level the playing field between the supremacy of the individual and the health of the country as a whole. NOT as a socialistic concept but simply and well articulated by JFK when he said "ask not what your country can do for you, Ask what you can do for your country."
This only helps if we see ALL AMERICANS as truly AMERICANS and not some as the political opposition.
We can all start by stopping ourselves if we notice we are falling into road rage as a way of thinking, talking about or addressing so called politically opposed people.
2
A chapter in a book I am working on, Clubs, Clans and Secret Societies, deals with some of these issues. Thank you for posting such a rich article on this subject just when needed.
What we're noticing here is happening all over the world. The planetary population is growing at a net rate of over 87 million humans per year. That means that we are adding roughly the equivalent of one Pittsburgh or one San Francisco every week, week in and week out, relentlessly, with all of the attendant effects on the ecosystem, resource consumption and human psychology. Studies have shown that both heightened aggression and a tightening of social networks are predictable consequences of overcrowding, in humans no less than in mice. Thus, as the population continues to grow, we can expect more aggressive behavior combined with a tendency to seek refuge in identity groups which serve to confirm our dark fantasies about the "other" while justifying their own negative reactions.
Of course, there are more proximate causes which we all can point to. But whatever the near-term incidents and fluctuations, population growth, resource depletion and environmental destruction are pushing us inexorably toward chaos. We are placing the hard decisions that we are incapable of making on the shoulders of our children.
3
I am one of those well informed folks. Loyal NYT reader and NPR listener. To balance I also tune into Fox and Ben Shapiro to keep myself in check and to make sure I hear the other side. Sam Harris gives me hope that smart and reasonable will prevail over outrage addiction and competitive victimhood. I agree strongly with both sides on various things. But I'm moving more right by the day. Trump must go, obviously, but we have to take him out of the conversation. It gets us nowhere.
2
I looked at "Understanding Partisan Cue Receptivity" and found that the term "cognivitve resources," which is found 91 times in the report, is never described, nor are there any indications of how it is measured. There is also an interesting footnote: "To our best knowledge there is no study that directly assesses the association between social identity and
cognitive resources. Moreover, the association between cognitive reflection – a measure of cognitive resources
– and ideology is absent (Kahan, 2013, p. 431) or very weak.
I also wonder if Krugman or the researchers realize that intra-group purity tests are a good definition of the history of Protestant Christianity, particularly in the United States, which has an astonishing number of denominations based on a correct interpretation of some portion of the Bible.
Perhaps we could more accurately describe these voting groups as "denominations" rather than "tribes" since there seems to be some sort of supra-political ideal that leads partisan voters to see the opposing side as "evil" or aligned with some version of Satan, aka "the adversary." What that ideal is, I have no idea.
1
Why is there no mention of the role of religion in this hyper-moral mess? It is hugely relevant that a great many people who self-identify as Christians --especially evangelicals-- have brought that identity into politics with a zeal and militancy that has grown to animate the Republican Party. Now we're constantly told that not only do we face an existential threat, but more importantly we face a threat to our very souls. As a bonus, they insist on "saving" all of us, even over our protests.
This has made the concept of evil integral to politics. Militant Christians identify deeply --inherently-- as Republican, and they're willing to do whatever it takes to "win" the larger battle (the one for our souls, for God!) by whatever means necessary. The end justifying the means resonated deeply with the Republican Party, and they welcomed the religious partnership.
Now that aggressive religion is integrated into politics, the animus is deep and intractable. While certainly not all Republicans are religious, the Christian element has played an outsize role in the upsurge of fervency, emotionality, and personal identification now tainting modern politics.
3
It is primal!
But now the prompts and cues are ubiquitous vis a vis the 24 hour serial bombardment of deeply polarizing information and propaganda, and anecdotal junk as well as the expanding firehose of social media. All of it ever more difficult to sort through or, to escape from.
In a nut shell:
“…political parties have, in effect, organized themselves around, and are now appealing directly to, that part of our psychology which is, and always has been, more emotional than rational.”
“Honest reasoning about issues is inconsistent with group loyalty. To be a good group member, I should adhere to a position because it is the group’s position, while believing that the facts justify it.”
Sort of an aside here, but what about the so called independents sandwiched in between the diametric extremes?
1
The findings described in this piece do not surprise me at all. As a daily NYT reader, I have become accustomed to reading the most hateful vitriol coming from avowed liberals and aimed at anyone who dares to identify as a conservative or, God forbid, a Trump voter. These self-identifying tolerant people cannot seem to tolerate anything other than their own groupthink. I read with interest left leaning sites like the NYT and the UK Guardian to try to understand the way the other side thinks. Can most commenters here say the same about thoughtful conservative sites like The National Review or The Federalist? The piece in question points to the increasing breakdown of our society along tribal lines as the driving force behind the current lethal partisanship. Which party has made a religion of identity politics?
9
@Katie - actually, as someone who regularly reads the Federalist and the National Review as "thoughtful." A look at the selection of articles and their headlines leads me to believe that they are just as full of sarcasm, denial, and dismissal of liberals as, say, Jezebel or Chicago Reader. I have found the news sections UK Guardian and the NYT as quite even-tempered in this regard. But, as always, it depends on whose ox is being gored.
@Katie - I'm sorry, but I did not proofread my post as well as I should have. The first sentence should read: "Actually, as someone who regularly reads the Federalist and the National Review, I would not describe their coverage or writing as "thoughtful." My apologies.
Political polarization is not a bug of the system, it's a feature.
The money masters who control much of the Democratic party's leadership ranks and the entire Republican party need political polarization to distract the majority of Americans from their real agenda: low taxes, low wages, low government spending on education, health and other areas of the public good, high government spending on military and other private contractors, and loose to nonexistent regulations on corporate monopoly power.
Since these positions would never attract popular support, political patrons provide funding to "leaders" who will whip up the masses with controversies involving immigration, racial resentment, abortion and arguments about political correctness or microaggressions. This effort has been aided by the economic decimation of the journalism profession, the rise of "infotainment" and the decision in the 1980s to end the FCC's Fairness Doctrine, which allowed broadcasters to devote time to opinionated gasbags like Rush Lamebrain and Sean Insanity without requiring equal time for opposing viewpoints. Attacks on public education and labor unions don't help either, and I'm sure that I am leaving out a lot of other factors.
Working people of every race, religion, ethnic background and political affiliation must find a way to see through these smokescreens and unite for policies that will benefit everyone.
6
This is why the Trump administration must be allowed to unravel by itself. Removal and punishment, while justified, will produce even more anger, conspiracy theories and "fair and balanced" news.
"On both sides, the best informed voters are by far the most partisan.": ok, but if I question the proposition that informed Republicans actually exist, does that make me a well-informed, inordinately partisan Democrat?
5
Thank you, thank you, thank you Mr. Edsall for this thoughtful, oh-so-true article. It is refreshing to read a piece in the NY Times that does not just spew condemnation of right-wing politicians and their followers. I would just add one point (granted, it is based on personal observation, not surveys or analysis): people who are members of partisan groups always see THEMSELVES as being rational, sensible, balanced and calm. A case in point: comments on this article. NY Times readers simply cannot accept the idea that progressive Democrats are as biased, clannish and angry as Trump-supporting Republicans. And yet it is true. We live in the twilight of America.
6
@Stefan A couple of thoughts...Has any Democratic Senate leader ever said on the day after a presidential election that his prime goal was to prevent the success of the new duly elected Republican President, or prevented that President's Supreme Court nominee to even get a hearing? No. And how many Democratic Presidents have "won" their election by having the Dad's Supreme Court appointees vote to stop the vote counting? Zero. And how many Democratic Presidential candidates have lost the popular vote but been put in office anyway because of the highly unrepresentative Electoral College? Zero. These are the kinds of things that most Dems I know think about when it comes to the GOP, not speeches by AOC or a few Dem so-called "leftists." On almost every issue of import, the majority of Americans, including Independents and Republicans, support the Dems' positions. What's wrong with this picture?
The first paper you drew sensational news from includes this statement right up front: "In two nationally representative surveys, we find large portions of partisans embrace partisan moral disengagement (10-60%) but only small minorities report feeling partisan schadenfreude or endorse partisan violence (5-15%)."
Also, a problem with sociologists is they think they're doing science when it's not yet at that point. They present a list of violent questions (I read them) and then say "woo, people answered violent questions". They also include the observation that their "novel" questions make it difficult to decide if they're seeing an increase in hostility.
But this kind of stuff might explain why more and more of the country are self-identifying as Independents. That's 38% vs. 30% each Dem and GOP according to Gallup's latest.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
2
I agree that anyone is in danger of becoming fundamentalist because anyone can get addicted to being right.
But I also think it's possible to discern between justice and injustice in a healthy way. It's possible to try and be wise and good, even if we should always remember we're imperfect. It's possible to work to stop harm while at the same time holding compassion for people who do harm.
We may rely on groups and information ecosystems to help us do this, but we are the ones inheriting, creating, changing, and passing on those systems, as well.
3
This is all very interesting. But there are variables missing from this piece: The actual issues,and the tactics. If the Left is using fear about environmental issues,say, it is based on scientific fact. The Right uses fear based on emotion (ie:patriotism, "the American way of life", differences are scary). I think too, that during the Obama years, people saw him bending over backwards to reach compromises with the opposition and where did it get him? It was the boomerang effect. And it wasn't like Obama was a "radical socialist"; he hired plenty of Wall Street insiders for his economic team. The opposition exhibited nothing but resistance, and "veiled" bigotry. Is it any wonder now that people believe compromise is highly overrated? "Evil triumphs when good men remain silent. "
6
@Tim Lynch - That was very insightful, "Compromise is overrated." I don't believe I can compromise on given the rich a tax cut while undermining Social Security.
You don't reach across the aisle to shake their hand. They aren't worthy of it.
Let's see that compromise was built into the Constitution so that it allows the loser of an election through the use of the Electoral College to actually become President. Wow! That is enough compromising.
3
The quoted portion from Haidt hits the nail on the head. Media, positive feedback from like-minded partisans, the joy of feeling outraged, the cohesion it brings, the meaning to one's existence it brings when other factors like religion and family life have declined in the face of relentless consumerism.
There is no reason why any country including America should last forever. History is pockmarked with the ruins of nations that thought themselves great.
We are in decline, as is the world generally.
8
This piece gets my vote for "The Most Important Article" award this year. If we don't fully understand how much of an instinct-driven critter we are, we will continue the classic mistakes of attributing our beliefs and actions to our advanced brainpower and ignoring what products of evolution we are. "Enlightenment" can come only from understanding this truth.
Hard though!
6
Excellent piece and seems to beg for upward development--individually and collectively.
At a certain stage, we don't see "the other" as anything but ourselves. This capacity is attained through meditation, and spiritual practice and by reinforcing complex/nuanced rather than simple thinking and by reinforcing communication that speak to the goodness at the heart of most people.
We can evolve beyond this fractured time but it will take leadership and effort. Humanity usually adapts to our conditions and global climate change could, sadly, serve to bring us all together-- if we are not to all die fighting over resources.
We still have a choice whether to up level or degrade. Let's move up the chain!
4
@REK: I think the word "soul" needs a more precise definition. I think of it as the individually unique operating system we each develop from the experience of living to cope with the circumstances of our lives, for better or worse. Human beings are social software operating mortal animal bodies.
1
Male dominance, tribalism, and social hierarchy are all products of 2-300,000 years of human evolution. They are deep instincts not to be wiped off the slate easily. They undoubtedly helped small, ragtag bands of early humans cohere and survive in a hostile world. Yet these are the very instincts, hardwired in us, that come most into conflict with modern civilization, or at least the best ideals of that civilization.
These instincts control our behavior, and we in turn rationalize that behavior. Conscious and subconscious defense mechanisms come into play. The more educated a person is, the more elaborate can become the rationalizations. Partisans on both sides, for example, engage in tribal behavior that is not in their best political interest, and they rationalize it, often creatively.
It is well understood by political professionals that Democrats can win the Electoral College in 2020, but only with a geographically broad coalition of moderates and progressives. Yet, many Democrats are in denial, insisting on a tribal approach. In so doing, they are acting against their own best interests, as surely as any Trump voter, because that is a losing strategy for 2020.
2
It's been clear to me for a while that there's going to be a resumption of the American Civil War which this time will result in a bloody and vicious victory by the Trumpian right while the non-Trumpian opposition continue to discuss definitions, hierarchies and leadership.
2
To reduce things to the barest level, it's all the NFL's fault.
It's win or lose. Our team or theirs. Allegiance to the winners. Hatred to the opponents. Win at all costs, and cheating is cool.
And it happens every Sunday for 6+ hours after you leave the place that tells you to love one another.
6
The one truth which most people cannot accept is that it isn't the progressives/Liberals/ Democrats who has gotten us to where we are. It is the Republican Party. It's just that simple.
Democrats, for years, have been fighting for its values with knives while the Republicans have used guns.
Start with Gingrich and look at how that "party" has conducted itself over the years: How many Roger Stones are involved in Democratic politics? How many Lee Atwaters? How may Democratic majority leaders have stolen Supreme Court appointments? How many Democratic pols are involved with our adversaries? How many Republicans have lied and cheated their constituencies by one-sided tax giveaways? What political party but the Republican has ever stated out front that they will do nothing to support a president and will do anything to "see that he is a one term president?" What party encouraged and promoted the belief that a sitting president isn't an American citizen?
No. The Republican Party views politics not as democratic give and take. Rather, they view it was life or death. They are a minority party and will do *anything* short of murder to stay in power. That's what we're dealing with.
The Democrats are simply not to blame for our present state of affairs and the problem is that no one in the media is willing to state that fact. If we all are at loggerheads in our politics it's because the Democrats—especially the younger ones—have said "ENOUGH!"
12
How did we get to a place where we must consider ALL opinions as having equal value? where both sides must be accorded respect for EVERYTHING they utter? where we must find good people amongst those who hate everyone unlike them?
“Both side-ism” and “what about-ism” are rhetorical tricks to elevate hate and nonsense to the same level as facts and reason.
After watching, for example, both MSNBC and Fox, it is glaringly easy to tell which is which.
7
I put the extreme partisanship right in the hands of Trump and his hate filled MAGA rallies which led to the GOP convention with loud chants of lock her up and calling Mrs. Clinton a murderer in light of Benghazi. This problem has nothing whatsoever to do with democrats. The majority of the GOP have embraced all of that evil.
8
I like to say the truth is all that matters, but maybe I should amend that saying to the WHOLE truth is all that matters. Because without the whole truth some very knowledgeable people can defend some bizarre things.
Many years back, two local radio guys had a show about the Civil War. Since I'm a history buff I loved calling in. This being the south and the place where the Civil War started, they naturally took the side of the Confederacy because, afterall, the war was not about slavery but about State's Rights. I often tried to point out that it was indeed about slavery.
Now, I could never win a trivia contest with these guys; when it came to the War of Northern Aggression they just knew too much. But when it came to the cause of the war they had some glaring holes in their knowledge. For example, they seemed unaware that Lincoln's only aggressive move against the south was to keep southerners from bringing in slaves into the Northwest territories. It's such gaps in their knowledge that prevented them from grasping the central concept of the actual reason for the war.
6
I guess all this proves is that we're not all that much removed from the caves or the trees where our ancestors gathered. But what a colossal waste to put this much importance into identifying with something so worthless and faithless as any political party.
And with respect to all of these learned men quoted in this article, I'm having a hard time buying into all of your explanations, certainly not the one about more intelligence making people more susceptible to party allegiance. If intelligence is the ability to make connections, devotion to party mythology is proof of the opposite.
Maybe we're just becoming more and more lost and disenfranchised by a seemingly cold and rudderless world that is spinning toward oblivion. We're cocooned with our smart phones, constantly being bombarded by offers and demands from thousands of virtual others, a digital cave or tree filled with a virtual community. Sad.
This doesn't bode well for the future, does it?
2
Labelling the opposition evil is out of the bounds of civil discourse. But what else would you expect from a man (and the party and people who support him) who thinks that there were many fine people on both sides in Charlottesville? Who allowed the separation of children from their families at the border with no plan to document it all so that they could be reunited? Who has defamed a war hero while he is a draft dodger? Who has barely veiled his racism and sometimes been overtly so? Who has bragged about sexually assaulting women? Who has admired despots around the world, while undermining relationships with decades old allies and insulted their leaders? Who has shared secret information with Russians, information that compromised relationships with allies, in the WH and become the lap dog for Putin? Who is the poster boy for xenophobia and nativism? Who has enabled these and other ugliness out in the open by his example, thereby appealing to the worst in Americans, and sadly finding that about 40% of them go along with it? Who has uttered 8000 lies and falsehoods knowingly since taking office? Who has attacked and demonized members of the press? Who has been willing to accept the support of white supremacists and alt right extremists? Who revels in adulation of his crowds revved up by his rants like a banana republic demogogue? Who calls truth fake news?
That is evil. We know who that is. Trump.
6
During the Revolutionary War we know that roughly one-third of the colonists supported the Revolution, one-third supported staying with England, and one-third were neutral. That suggests that polarization has always been around in American politics, and the main thing that's new today is instantaneous communication.
3
Sadly, these results are not surprising. Nor are they new. The country started coming apart in the 60's, but since the divide was mainly (but not only) generational, it was tempered somewhat and that source abated over time. The demonization of the opposing side now is of such fervor that we see it in "respectable" columnists (including, nay, especially in this newspaper - see Krugman), newly elected politicians - see Tlaib, the moneyed activist groups - see Steyer.
The 2020 election will fracture the electorate into thirds: Trumpists, Green New Dealers, and the rest of us (unorganized centrists?). It's starting to feel as what I imagine it must have felt like in the 1850's...
1
Do what Abe said:
"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
I get angry at people like Mitch McConnell, who appears quite unconcerned about problems that affect ordinary people. We need a Lincoln, and Trump is not going to become one. I wish he and anyone else in a position of power would realize that people are disturbed by the profound and widespread changes caused by globalization and the digital revolution. It is a time for leaders to help reassure those who feel unready for change. Neither political party should use fear and anger to get votes, thereby straining the bonds of affection to the breaking point. America successfully got through the depression of the 1930s, World War II, and other dangerous difficulties. If we could stop blaming each other and put our energy into adapting to the 21st century, it would help everyone. This is said to be the "land of the brave." Let's stop blaming each other for things we dislike, and work toward a better future.
5
I know this will sound partisan, but the lower numbers cited for Republicans who want to see the other side die, or are willing to commit violent acts if they lose is way too low. Spend a little time reading social media posts or studying right-wing media outlets’ content versus that of the left and you will see that they are far more hate filled than they let on when questioned by a poll taker. By the time I was ten years old, being an observant person, I had already seen that many so-called conservative people put on a smiley face and spoke reasonable words when in public, but were completely different, more angry and bigoted, when in private. Nothing has really changed in the more than fifty years since I first internalized that lesson in human nature except that social media is now seen as an extension of “speaking in private” for many. I have seldom seen anyone on the Left call for violence against the Right, but I have seen many posts by those on the Right threatening that they have guns and are ready and willing to use them if things don’t go their way. Republicans aren’t less likelynto be hate-filled and violent than Democrats, they are just more likely to lie to a pollster.
8
@Jose Pieste If you want to get anecdotal I could name far more extreme acts of violence perpetrated by far right wing nuts. The synagogue in Pittsburgh, the women's clinic shooting etc...
It's March 1861. Slave states versus Free States.
How did that one turn out.
3
Yup, it’s almost THAT serious now.
3
Anecdotal evidence, I know, but I have banned exactly two people from my list of 300+ Facebook friends, in both cases because they insisted on posting bigoted memes on my page after being asked not to. Some other people in my friends list post similar memes on their own pages, but I just ignore them, because i have to deal with them professionally. On my page, however, any bigoted statements get taken down, and the offender receives a warning.
On the other hand, six right-wingers, including two relatives, have banned me for such offenses as not liking Trump, debunking one of the Fox News scare stories, opposing Brexit, and asking (not ordering, just requesting) someone not to go on and on about irrelevant Libertarian ideology in a discussion of a local labor dispute.
In none of these cases was I expressing my opinions on their page, but evidently they took offense at the mere sight of my opinions on my own page.
As many of my left-leaning friends have noted, the right-wingers seem to be the real "snowflakes" here.
8
"Hibbing dismissed the argument that people have “become tribal because of changes in the media environment.” Instead, he wrote,
people became tribal because the fundamental substantive issues today are about tribe. We are a group-based species."
Pet theories can blind people to the truth. These experts are trying to offer complex explanations for something simple enough that Donald Trump understands it. Stoking resentment of unsophisticated voters is extremely effective. It is that simple. There are a host of reasons for why the Trump base was so ripe for that approach, and Fox News and other explicitly biased right wing media outlets are a big part of it. In the end, what matters is that around 40% of the American voting public is supporting a man who has no business being president of the United States. By any reasonable metric, Trump is grossly unqualified. His tenure has been disastrous. The base still supports him. Why? Because he is extraordinarily persistent in denigrating the people and institutions that unsophisticated voters resent and equally persistent in playing to their prejudices.
The desire to overthink the current political climate is understandable, but must be resisted. The eye of the storm is Donald Trump, and he is not a complex man, he's a man with a complex. Trump aggrieves. His supporters revel in being aggrieved. Spite is his only weapon.
3
A famous teacher once said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
Do I have a splinter in my eye? Look in the mirror before you answer.
1
It is dangerous the degree to which all of us - and I include myself as a Democrat - fall into echo chambers (aka filter bubbles) when on social media
Facebook - and the NY Times comments - too often favor those posts which demonize Republicans. Truly most of my neighbors & friends are Republicans & I like them. The fact that we disagree on President Trump is not going to alter that.
I would just encourage all of us to talk to members of the opposing party. Get out of your filter bubble and into the real world.
And if you meet with hostility ,turn the other cheek. Do not return verbal violence for verbal violence
2
@Tembrach.. Nice try, but you're no Democrat.
1
What people will put on an anonymous survey, and what they'll commit to publicly are two different things. They may well be answering survey questions honestly. But when push comes to literal shove, this is where we will see that there is no "equivalence" between the Left and the Right.
More than two years on in this "presidency", the acts of hate crimes and violence committed in this country have been largely done by Trump supporters. FBI statistics show that about three quarters of these criminal acts are done by right-wing groups such as the Proud Boys. The Left, on the other hand, has committed only 3 percent of these crimes.
What does this mean? It means that we on the Left are not willing to fight for our beliefs, but Trump voters are. No doubt they are much more heavily armed than we are. And they have shown they are willing to commit unspeakable acts of violence (consider the murders at the Charleston church by Dylan Roof, at the Pittsburgh synagogue by Robert Bowers, and the vicious murder of Heather Heyer by James Fields) to cower the rest of us.
And Trump voters know that we on the Left will not fight back. We will put our heads down and kow tow to them. Because we are afraid of them, because we are not willing to literally put our lives on the line to save this country. They know all this. They know we'll never do anything more than attend a few rallies.
And because of the Left's cowardice, Trump will leave at time solely of his choosing.
3
@Nicholas Rush: The rule of law acts though courts of justice. That is why they focus on tendentious judicial appointments.
Got it. In order to prove our courage we have to engage in our own acts of unspeakable violence. Let’s get to work people. The refusal to consider, let alone accept, the ideas in this column is a symptom that supports them. We’re doomed. (I’m moderately liberal and quite well armed)
Fine words, but the intent has been thoroughly destroyed by a movement started by Newt Gingrich.
Now the other side is becoming hateful, although there is no equivalency in how that plays out beyond words. The left doesn't have the violent steak that the right wingers have, nor the weapons. Nor, beyond a few fringe types, is the American left filled with authoritarian loving types. The authoritarian lovers are in the Republican party. Most of the Republican party is the fringe, or at least supporting the fringe.
What did anyone expect? More kumbaya by liberals?
6
The fault lies with people like Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson who prey upon the fears of the rural uneducated and maliciously get them to believe that yellow is really green and that dishonesty is really patriotism.
5
Great column. I have long dreaded thinking of the prospect that we are heading to a violent confrontation between "us vs. them." Maybe after a Trump rally in which he incites his mob to taunt journalists . . . or as Trump supporters leave the rally, they are attacked by left wing dems. I hope I'm wrong, but the research and views expressed in your article is not very hopeful. Buffalo Springfield said it all in the 60s; "There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear." Hopefully "it" won't be a bloody, lethal confrontation between us vs. them.
Democrats are enraged because the GOP pushes a platform of racism, sexism, xenophobia, anti-environmentalism and transferring wealth to the one-percent.
Republicans are enraged because Fox News tells them to be.
The problem, for both sides, starts with Fox News.
7
The republican party cares about nothing but wealth. Anyone that would support the evil one in the White House whose only concern is his own image and how he is perceived , has no conception as to what this country is all about.
This country is called a commonwealth with the understanding that everyone shares.
Tell THAT to the MAGA crowd and see how quickly you get booed off the stage.
2
Love reading the comments. Pretty easy to tell which are from the "right" and which are from the "left." Anecdotal evidence - not to be confused with empirical evidence - that reinforces the theme and substance of the article.
3
When I was growing up, I was taught that to be truly independent was best, and that independent meant being open to some policy positions of each side.
Independents are the third party, and those I know make it a point NOT to adopt all of the policy positions of any one side.
We held that made US the better citizens, compared to the partisan party members.
3
I'm a Progressive Lefty, and I am proud of Nancy Pelosi for not supporting impeachment.
Impeachment would accomplish nothing, but further polarization.
Senator Bernie Sanders with his emphasis on issues that matter to ALL poor and working people, has confidence that by working together on addressing needs of the great majority of people, we can gradually bridge differences.
The incredibly huge wealth/income inequality is a galvanizing issue.
Climate change is a ticking time bomb, like wealth/income inequality.
As President Bernie Sanders will not waste time focusing on differences, but will, with his commanding leadership, bring us together to deal with common interests, always looking for and emphasizing common ground.
5
As soon as I started reading Edsall’s piece, I thought of Jonathan Haidt, and was happy to see him quoted about 2/3 of the way into it. For years now Haidt, an academic, has been pointing out, among more general observations, that there is a large liberal (progressive) majority in academia, with a concurrent dismissal of conservative views and often even centrist ones.
I never thought I’d see the First Amendment questioned on college campuses. Indeed I became a college teacher in the early 1970s partly because I loved the freedom I’d felt as an undergraduate in the classroom, but today I think most professors are afraid to say anything that might deviate from progressive orthodoxy.
Haidt’s 2012 book "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion" goes well beyond the academic world, and should be required reading for every college freshman. All the talk in the comments section about politicians miss the point. Maybe there is evil in some of them, but among the general population, I have found – as Haidt’s subtitle implies -- that most people are good, regardless of their political or religious beliefs.
Groupthink gets in our way. A key is to listen to the other side to see what insights they may possess. Haidt ends his very scholarly but highly readable book with these words, well worth remembering: “We’re all stuck here for a while, so let’s try to work it out.”
1
i have no reason to believe our country will survive another decade.
4
Depending which side you’re on, you can always find a survey to echo your beliefs. Aliens built the pyramids, sports championships are rigged, the earth is flat, we never really walked on the moon, Elvis and JIm Morrison are still alive, the End Times, and no one died at Sandy Hook. Nonsense, fear mongers and con men control the voices out there, and people feel there is no where to get the real story so they grab on to whatever makes them sleep better. With religious leaders abdicating their roles through lust and greed, the divide between rich and poor more pronounced than ever, and the sheer volume of lies and misinformation coming from media and government sources, it’s enough to make anyone want to hide under the bed! Time to take a breath, love your kids, protect your finances, and put down the phone, and refuse to listen to the screaming all around you. Not easy, but it can be done.
2
An illustration of why "both-sides-ism" as written here is simply poppycock.
Conservatives regularly boast of "owning libs". Please correct me if i'm wrong, but I have yet to hear a liberal utter the phrase "owning cons" (or "conservatives", or any other word denoting the right side of the political spectrum).
This has been the way of the republican party since newt gingrich. For a quarter century the conservatives of the republican party have waged political war on the democratic party. it's past time for the democratic party to return the favor.
If that means a loss of civility, so be it, but please don't make the mistake of saying this was instigated by both sides. The record does NOT support this.
7
@whg: Another common assertion is "I love to see liberal tears."
It's not about what is morally right or even practical. It's about asserting one's power.
It's no coincidence that many of the Trump supporters I have known over the long term were bullies or mean girls in high school.
1
Having traveled/lived extensively in USA, W. Europe, Australia and Canada, there is no doubt in my mind that we all share the same standard of living and to a certain extent lifestyle. While there are some cracks appearing in Europe, by far and large this sort of regional animosity shows up only in the US. So what gives? If you see the biggest and most prominent difference is race. Sorry, but yes this is the biggie.
We have fought a huge war on race and you can see how the GOP has used the race card in nearly every election in the last 50 years. Reagan with his "ghetto queens", HW with his "Willie Horton" and Trump with his "Mexican/immigrant" rhetoric. This plays very well with a lot of white folks in the deep South and mid-west. With a growing non-white populations, the people who fear race the most, cling to their guns and religion as their only protection against the masses. Fear drives most of them to choose the party which looks and feels more like them, than the other side. None of the studies mentioned by Tom ever took race into consideration. With America, race is in everything!
3
As the saying goes, you can take the boy out of the jungle, but not the jungle out of the boy. As homo sapiens we have only been walking upright for about 300,000 years at best. We simply have not evolved biologically to not be tribal. Our innate tribal-ness is probably responsible for our survival as a species. Meaning our species would have died out long ago if not for our species being tribal and having a healthy dose of fear of the other. Unfortunately, in a now interconnected planet of 8 billion Homo sapiens living on top of each other tribal genetics is now a liability to our species survival. Tribal-ness only gets worse from here as the population grows along with competition for finite resources.
Forgive me for sounding so negative but in the end, this boils down to the fact that we as human beings have a predisposition to do evil. We’re not nearly as tolerant of others (and other viewpoints) as we think we are and we tend to dismiss facts if or when it doesn’t fit our worldview. Just observing social media, whose influence by the way I believe the studies greatly underestimates, we’ve reached a point where if you don’t agree with a viewpoint you’re either an idiot or evil and therefore deserving to be shunned. It typically doesn’t matter if you’re correct…you’re the OTHER and you will be treated as such.
2
Once again, a studied piece ignores the elephant in the room, which is religion. The big problem is that we have allowed religion to insidiously permeate, indeed dominate, many aspects of politics and civil life. This is the driver of the tribalism we see infecting every aspect of society in the USA.
Boosters for religion will say that this is as it should be, according to my faith's instructions, whilst more secular folk will cry foul, point to the constitution and try to push back. If I had to pick the event that lit the blue touch paper of division, it would be gay marriage, which to religious people was simply a step too far for their moral codes to accommodate.
2
Certainly, Mr. Edsall, you have learned by now that only "studies" that support a person's political views are to be countenanced.
1
It strikes me that there are multiple factors involved, depending on the focus of research, and some being more important than others. Another focus is on authoritarianism that can be found in just about any level of knowledgeability. Dr. Robert Altemeyer developed a measure of authoritarianism on a scale from high to low and refined it through 30+ years of research into the authoritarian personality. (www.theauthoritarians.org ) Some of the observations in this article reflect Altemeyer's findings, summarized in three main features: adherence to some perceived authority (of course), but also aggression in the service of that adherence and conventionality (the "moralistic" element). Altemeyer's research subjects scoring high on that scale consistently showed these three basic features. People who scored low showed much more independent- and open-mindedness. My observations about this trend include Trump having selfishly consolidated and aggravated authoritarianism and its divisiveness already in the population. I openly admit to being biased enough to believe that it has flourished in the Trump faction of the Republican Party where control through domination--defeating and winning--have become primary, thereby practically murdering bi-partisanship. No wonder that people who still believe that right (in the traditional sense) makes might must rise to this occasion. Thereby, it is a false equivalency to attribute the same authoritarian motives to all involved.
2
It is really the 0.1 % versus the rest of us
but the top 14.9 % are the "toadies" of the 0.1 %
and enforce the rules and disparity for the remaining
85 % of us.
I voted for Ike, for JFK, for Goldwater, for RFK in the primary,
Chisholm, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Keyes, Myself, Keyes, Myself, did not vote.
I did not vote for Obama, as he was too young and too inexperienced, and for either Clinton or for Trump -
as neither were worthy of becoming President.
I voted for Chisholm because she seemed better than Nixon and had more common sense than McGovern.
I voted forGoldwater and Keyes because they did not
believe in side-stepping the Constitution.
I would vote for Sherrod Brown.
Most of us live better than 99.99999% of those who
were alive in 1900, so why are so many up in arms ?
Power, it all comes down to Power.
And there is no cure for the Lust for Power.
Too many young people think they should be in Power
though they lack the Experience and thus the Wisdom
to know What should be Done, How it should be Done
and When it should be Done.
But they are naive and thus believe their opponents
must be their blood enemies and so they seek to destroy all
opposition by silencing the voices of those who dare
to remind them that they might possibly be wrong.
1
@John Brown: Many do not understand or adhere to the limited-powers concept of the US Constitution, which protects the liberties of minorities by limiting the powers of majorities.
@Steve Bolger
Oddly enough Goldwater was correct
in saying that instead of Laws the
Civil Rights Acts should have been
Constitutional Amendments, though
he knew they would fact an uphill task
in getting them approved.
The new generation does not seem to care
about the Right to Free Speech.
1
I am a Liberal partisan and proud of it.
I will stand up for human rights (especially for women) and I will desire the government (especially its leaders) to represent all of the people and not just all of one kind.
I will fight for the environment and against climate change, for if I don't, then why should anyone else either ? - that line of thinking got us where we are here today on the precipice of exterminating ourselves.
I will fight for economic fairness for all people whereas they deserve a basic minimum income, and when they do work that they receive proper recompense, benefits and security as they do.
I will fight for health care as a human right for all, and that those that get sick are not devastated financially just for the sake there of.
I will fight for a proper education and access for all, regardless of their background or abilities.
I will fight for the rule of law, and for it to be applicable fairly to all, and not there to be one set of rules only for some. They are applicable to all regardless of station.
I will fight for freedom of all peoples, and there to be Democracy for all that vote for it, along with the right for everyone to vote.
I will fight for all of these things and more, not only for meself, but for everyone else, regardless if they are against me or not.
I am Spartacus !
5
Sorry, but many people are Democrats simply because Democrats value an informed and spirited public policy debate. As the Republican party coalesces around white nationalism as a defining identity, the vast majority of Americans are left with only one political party to choose from.
There's the old saw: "I'm not a member of an organized political party - I'm a Democrat." But seriously, I'm fine with all the talk about Democratic party dissension in the ranks... that's just a signal there's healthy debate.
Republicans who contemplate civil unrest do so because they want a white nationalist state - Nazi Germany. That's frightening. Democrats who contemplate civil unrest do so because they Republicans will successfully create a white nationalist state. Is that really so bad? Was the German resistance to the Nazis as bad as the Nazis themselves?
3
Is there any room for somebody like me, who thinks the Republicans are wrong on just about everything, but who is also not very sure about the Democrats? In other words, my ill will towards Republicans is not supported by a strong identification with their opponents. This seems to directly contradict the whole premise of this article and its psychological/anthropological foundation.
6
If you look the data in this article, one can conclude that Republicans are better people than Dems. Interesting.
6
Yes, partisan polarization is definitely occurring, but four things are happening/have happened on the Republican side that have no counterpart on the Democratic side.
1) With the emergence of the Tea Party and the election of Donald Trump, Republican ideological orthodoxy has changed dramatically. On every thing from free trade and immigration to voting rights enforcement, family values, and cronyism.
2) A small but important segment the Republican intelligensia has broken ranks with their party: Bill Kristol, George Will, Jennifer Rubin, Steve Schmidt, Rick Wilson, Charlie Sykes, Joe Scarborough, David Frum, etc.
3) Republican legislators represent the fringe sentiments of their party rather than its mainstream's opinion.
4) Republicans have been obliged to reject science, evidence and reality in running for office and have had to rely on emotionalism, xenophobia,"alternate facts", and truthiness to win.
The polarization, in other words, has been asymmetrical, with the Republicans straying ever further from reality. I would like to see Thomas Edsall give this issue closer examination.
11
@WmC, great post. I would add to point 4: the Establishment clause of the Constitution is very important to me personally, and to many/most secular citizens. I find the litmus tests , the points you raise, and the positions of the GOP trend very much against the most precious amendment: the first. That makes the GOP impossible for me to take seriously, today, though certainly not in the past when this was not a problem for this party. The GOP extremist babbling about the threat of Sharia Law seems to me classic transference, as they attempt to bring their form of extreme Christianity into every element of modern life.
3
I find this strangely ahistorical, an example of the all-too-common US penchant for forgetfulness. The US from before its formation was violently partisan. Secessionists (from Britain) ruthlessly persecuted and ultimately expelled loyalists (to Britain). The secessionists themselves were deeply riven and violent tensions erupted in bloodshed over states rights, civil rights & slavery, often splitting communities and even families. The same was true for US territorial expansion and the genocide of indigenous peoples; pro and anti expansionists were at each others throats. In more modern times, people favouring peace or human rights or civil rights have been attacked as subversive, un-American, etc. The country roiled during the Cold War and the Vietnam War and the scars are far from healed. Evangelists think it fine to rough up women's rights activists or persecute gays. During the Bush senior bombing of Iraq, I saw an elderly man wearing an old peace sign T shirt beaten by a mob in a departure lounge at the Dallas-Fort Worth airport. Tolerance, acceptance of different points of view, fair political process and peaceful resolution have never been part of the American repertoire. What's seems new is a president encouraging discord and violence, although even there Reagan did much the same. It's worth keeping in mind that extremists disappointed with Reagan went rogue, birthing militias and a more organised white supremacist movement. Expect the same now.
2
Per Tooby’s statement, “There is no necessary reason why someone’s position on abortion should predict their position on global warming should predict their position on welfare should predict their position on ...”, doesn’t this reasoning give more support for election voting systems that rank candidates by preference over the binary option we have now? It seems this system would reduce the polarization issue in our current system.
2
If you want an overriding issue like fighting Communism or dealing with the depression there is already one that is effectively the elephant in the room.
Climate Change.
If you are talking about the importance of identity in determining how active informed people are in supporting their party and willingness to reach out, you can't avoid looking at which party is more aligned with objective reality as part of that identity. I suspect the authors of those studies avoiding examining that aspect of the matter.
You can't argue with Nature and you can't ignore it or deny it.
We're talking about existential threats here. The difference is orientation: one side sees the existential threat as affecting the continued existence of humans on this planet - and all the other organisms we share it with. The other sees the existential threat as a loss of power, status, and money.
There is no room for compromise there. The only question is which side will prevail. Climate Change doesn't care who wins.
11
I believe that actions speak much louder than words. People might feel free to vent their anxiety & frustration in, say, an opinion survey or in the Comments section, but how many of these people have actually engaged in violent or otherwise harmful actions? Who has caused actual harm or seriously attempted actual harm for partisan reasons? Which people, by their actual actions & policies, have caused concrete harm to others, not just hurt somebody's feelings? Those who act in a harmful manner are the "lethal" ones, not the average people who vent their fears on some academic survey.
When I choose sides, I try to determine which group is most likely to reason thoughtfully & to listen carefully to those who disagree & to make a sincere effort to iron out differences peacefully. I am interested in people who actually want to problem solve rather than knee-jerk demonize & marginalize.
2
Thise growing "lethal partisanship" is one reason why I think Joe Biden would be a good one term president.
He has so many longtime good relationships with members of Congress from both sides of the aisle.
If nothing else Biden might help tamp down the name calling and hateful rhetoric. He will most certainly be the one to encourage Republicans and Democrats work together to restore honesty, dignity and Integrity in our government.
@JM
Biden's "longtime good relationships" have sometimes been with Republicans who have retired or are retiring. That old-school we'll-work-this-out together mentality that Republicans and Democrats used to have was proven dead when Orin Hatch personally promised Biden that Obama's nominee would get a hearing if he only nominated a moderate like Merrick Garland. Then McConnel put the kibosh on it. Don't think that a President Biden would be more than a placeholder.
2
@JM, I think Joe should run and can win precisely becasue he has the backbone of a street fighter. During his campaign he should help the DNC pick viable senatorial candidates in states like KY and TX-- and get rid of people like McConnell and Cruz. I don't think Joe needs to waste too much time appealing to GOP senators of that ilk-- they are beyond redemption or compromise. They don't even really believe in our Constitution. On the other hand, I think it would be politically savvy to include some of the never trumpers in his administration.
Or, when people feel powerlessness, they will gravitate toward those who appear to share their beliefs and have power to act on those beliefs.
Us vs. them is America's mantra whether politics, sports or capitalism or news reporting (red states vs blue states). We have always been a win or lose country, little middle ground for co-existence
2
At first I was inclined to toss this piece into the "Bunk" file.
Where can we see the left equivalent to those armed vigilantes at the Bundy ranch? When has a leftist driven his car down the sidewalk with the intention of death and destruction? When did Obama ever say to America "You are either with me and my war or you are un American"? When has a Democrat ever done what McConnell has done in the interests of their big donors?
I don't remember anytime when "Yes" was the answer to any of those questions.
I don't think we can talk about this issue without the right wing hate radio and F(alse)ox getting their fair due regarding tossing fuel on the fire.
But then I thought of my reaction to a piece in yesterday's paper about the falling birth rates in conservative strong holds. I was, and am, delighted that t rump's supporters are not having children because I think that will improve the overall gene pool in the future. And I am not real sad that many of the opioid overdoses are in t rump country as well. So I guess I do qualify for a little bit of that partisan "hate".
But then I remember that the right wing corporate hold on Washington is reinforced by these people and that could lead to the destruction of our planet. And no future for my kids.
That is evil.
7
Interesting column. Apparently hatred of the other is a bi-partisan phenomenon.
Ironically, in a society in which traditional religions are losing members and power, we have now adopted Nature and the amorphous "Community" are our new gods. You must either swear allegiance and comply with whatever the rules de jure are, or be condemned and ostracized.
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
1
@Uysses: This is why "faith" is not admissible as a rationale for legislation under the US Constitution. Arguments over the intangible are not resolvable.
1
@Steve Bolger Hence the "belief" in catastrophic man-made climate change should not be an accepted rationale for legislation. Given the limits on our understanding of the nature and extent of non-man-made climate change and the limits of our current models, radical "action" is a fool's errand.
The false equivalences and willful elision of relevant facts are hard to bear here.
Consider the following hypothetical scenario: A group of sociopaths and a group of good Samaritans cross paths regarding redistributive taxation. The sociopaths hate the idea and condemn the GS's for being snowflakes. The GS's love it and consider the sociopaths to be unethical hoarders of rewards they received from rules rigged for their benefit.
Now consider all of the "data" that Edsall uses in his "both sides do it" arguments:
Both sides are "ideological". Yep. One side's ideology is for rules rigged in favor of sociopaths, the other's is against.
Both sides are "tribal." Yep. One side rallies together like-minded folks defending their ill-gotten gains, the other rallies together to obtain their fair share.
Both sides' most well-informed members are the most tribal. Yep. See the part about sociopaths vs. good Samaritans.
Please recall that the example here is hypothetical. But note how well it brings out the kinds distortions and elisions in the way these researchers, and Edsall in particular, frame the issues.
A valid argument is one where the truth of the premises (the "data" in this case) make the conclusion hard to resist. The hypothetical brings out how easy it is to resist Edsall's and the other researchers' false equivalences.
Sober science this is not.
6
@M Peirce: The "faith" side of this schism dishonestly rejects the truth: that faith-based beliefs are not provable by anyone.
As an independent moderate who voted straight Democratic ticket from 2003 through 2014 (based largely on opposition to W's Middle East policy and rhetoric from the Fox News right), how did I end up holding my nose and voting for Trump in 2016? The truth is that I saw Democrats becoming more and more angry, hateful, intolerant, judgemental, blind to their biases...in fact everything I always hated about the Fox News right. The place where these attitudes are most visibly on display is right here in the comment sections at the NYT and especially at the WaPo. Eventually I couldn't decide whether I was more offended by the rhetoric from the right or the left and voted for Trump based on his strong opposition to the neocons and the Iraq invasion and a promise of new ideas in the Middle East.
4
@rpe123 We are awaiting your apology.
1
@rpe123: Mitch McConnell has earned my abject contempt for his corruption of the federal judiciary with theocrats.
1
@rpe123
A democrat who voted for Trump...how's that working out for you?
Putin's plan to destroy the U.S.A. from within is right on target. With both the Republicans and Democrats arming themselves more and more, a civil war is very possible.
1
Google the term “yellow journalism” which was rampant in the early 20th century. What stopped it? A cataclysmic failure of our society ( the Great Depression) followed by the need to pull together presented by World War II. All the great social progress of the USA followed the resolution of those catastrophes. We are at the precipice right now - I hope we have learned enough to step back from the edge and find a way to work for all our citizens. Call me what you will - socialist, progressive, democrat. I don’t care, I call myself a citizen.
2
The real root of our problems today is lust for money, nothing more.
2
@Christopher Colt: Money is power. That is why people lust for it.
2
Sit down at the same table with Nazis? Make common cause, seek common ground, with racists? Vote for Trump?
You ask too much, Mr Edsall.
4
Ahem. Lack of TRUTH is behind american disenfranchisement, as mainstream media perpetrated lies told by bush-cheney-rumsfeld to de$tabilize entire Middle-East, millions dead, millions refugeed, drive wars, war crimes, continued by obama who in fact raised JSOC-CIA-military black ops to 80 per day in 134 countries. Then there's Wall $treet disaster, also gone unrevealed, though whistle-blown by Liz Warren, Brooksley Born, 2007 stated at $690 trillion fraud$, largest theft in world history. TRUTH is not "hate"...and this conflation is what "the people" are told rather than truth, as candidates 2020 endorse FDR regulatory legislation-reform, end to bush-cheney-rumsfeld war powers, fossil fuel industry induced climate catastrophe, and decades of loss of government "transparency, oversight, accountability".
3
@nonclassical: The huge pyramid of "derivatives" were bets on interest rate moves by the Fed. It was a zero sum game, but it took time to move the sheer volume of money involved, hence the liquidity crisis.
@Steve Bolger
Follow the $$$$; it now resides under FDIC taxpayer bailout auspices, documented here:
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-fdic-insuring-jamie-dimons-mistakes/
Have you heard of "MERS"? ("mortgage electronic registry system")? In combining mortgages ("collateralized debt obligations"), they were NOT registered in states of origin, rather, in internet cloud. States supreme courts defined "no standing" in foreclosure proceedings, due to. Taxes were NOT paid. Moody's, S & P, fraudulently rated mortgages + "packages" of. In other words, there are many more fraud$ involved than you are expressing. Have any idea how (leverage) gas prices nearly quadrupled under bush-cheney? See Wall $treet fraud$=$peculation...controlled nearly half all world oil futures...
1
Interesting research and findings but perhaps it misses the most important metric: which side has actually committed violence? From Charlottesville to Squirrel Hill the answer is so damning that it renders exercises like these pointless.
3
@David Clayman
Never mind the near fatal shooting to Republican Representative Steve Scalise.
2
A significant portion of this conflict is Religious vs. Secular. When you are convinced you hold the Truth other beliefs must be False. This issue will increase in relevance in the near future (see Toobin’s recent New Yorker comment on the Supreme Court divide over the first amendment ‘establishment’ vs. ‘exercise’ clauses.)
1
All the psychologists have weighed in with their theories about why polarization has increased.
But why is the electorate so polarized in the first place? It's not psychology, but economics. We had similar amounts of polarization during the Gilded Age, the defining characteristic of which was high income inequality.
But polarization decreased radically from the New Deal to about 1980. Republicans moved to the left because it became clear by the mid 1940s that they had to support high taxes on the rich, Social Security, unions and other safety net programs to win elections in metropolitan areas.
Since Reagan was elected, tax cuts, union-busting and regular attacks on the safety net have become more and more part of the Republican platform, and dependence on the rich for contributions has moved Republicans far to the right again.
3
I do wonder if the question about those on the other side dying is more a belief that things won't change until older generations die off than it is a belief that they should die now. Admittedly, this may seem like a distinction without a difference to some. I don't think it necessarily is, however.
I'm 62 and am somewhat sanguine that as my generation and those older do, in fact, move off the stage, some needed changes can take place. I don't, however, want my age cohort or those older to be killed off. Neither do I believe that younger people are a unified group nor that they all want changes that would be positive. For instance, I am disturbed that a sizeable portion of younger people appear to have extreme beliefs on both the far right and the far left, although I do believe that the alt-right attitudes and opinions found in such groups as the Proud Boys and Identity Evropa are inherently more violent and held by a larger percentage than the attitudes of and opinions of the far left Antifa and anarchist groups. For that matter, some of the so-called anarchist groups seem to be as much alt-right as far left.
At any rate, I do believe that some issues such as needed, drastic action on climate change will not occur until many people my age and older have moved off the stage. Sadly, I believe that by then it will probably be too late.
2
Partisanship is not a new thing in America. You've always had one side railing against the other, often in pretty vicious terms. But for the most part, everyday Americans -- those not directly involved in the political process -- managed to keep their conversations civil and informed.
The difference now is that everyday Americans are not so civil or informed anymore. They don't take the time to analyze the information they consume, but instead seek out the information that confirms what they've been led to believe, regardless of its accuracy. Then they bark the party line as loudly as possible.
When a nation starts looking at thought, reason, education and civility as weaknesses rather than strengths, you end up with Trump in the White House and extremists controlling the conversation.
3
A generation ago, representatives were not well-connected to their constituancies, and spent a lot of time in Washington. As they could not easily get home to places W of the Mississippi River, they didn't go often. Instead, they stayed in DC, socialized across party lines, and engaged in compromise voting. In addition, the use of earmarks meant that a politician could get something out of a bill that he otherwise disagreed with. Today, it's all changed. TOO MUCH contact, too much time at home, no earmarks. Result: dysfunction, paralysis, partisanship.
1
As a liberal (small s) democrat, I’m challenged by the broad bipartisan accusations here: both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, are equally responsible for hyperpartisanship and the erosion of moderation, civility, reasonable discourse and compromise.
Unfortunately, it’s hard to see how this equivalency is supported by political realities. Is there anything in the Democratic party that compares to the mainstream traction achieved within the GOP of hysterical Tea Party and NRA rhetoric, the malice of birtherism/racism, evanglical absolutist bigotry and unreason (Trump appointed by God?), deliberate strategies of minority and youth voter suppression —and the increasingly glib use by Repubs of congressional nuclear options (eg. Merrick Garland)?
In fact, arguably Obama’s main shortcoming was, at least initially, a naive belief in the place within the American political landscape for reasoned debate, moderation, political maturity and bipartisan compromise — this, especially after the election of the first black president.
Is it really surprising, then, if more liberal democrats have begin to feel like suckers for imagining the right will respond to reason, fact, give-and-take, civility and respect for institutional norms?
To apportion responsibility for toxicity of recent political culture, even pre-trump, I’d have to lay it, at best, 65%-35% at the feet of the American right.
Call me tribal...
6
@h leznoff: Obama's big ego blinded him to the reality that the Republicans were setting him up to lose in 2008, and he probably would have if McCain had picked a heavyweight running mate.
2
The problem is not Right versus Left, or GOP versus Dems. Multiple studies show most people reside in the center somewhere.
This comments thread provides the answer. The problem is "US", and many peoples' "my way or highway" approach, exacerbated by the extremes that dominate social media.
Humans are deeply tribal animals. Even if "red and blue America" went separate ways, we would soon find other things to fight about. The problem is lack of self awareness of ourselves, and the human condition.
Come on folks, you are living in one of the best countries in the world, during one of the greatest eras to be alive! You get to pick your leaders every 4 years. Stop blowing things out of all proportion, and count your blessing. The "click bait" corporate media wants you to think the world us ending all the time. It is not!
3
It’s good to know Dems have abandoned being bullied and are fighting back. Remember all the Republican investigations and impeachment of Clinton? Remember the Republican obstruction to Obama including their refusal to allow him to appoint any judges? Remember all the endless investigations into Hillary Clinton? Remember how white Christian conservatives treat you if you’re gay or trans, black or brown, Asian or Native American, or female, or non-Christian?
What they dished out they are getting back; we’ve all had enough.
2
Edsall is good. Probably the best writer in the social science vein.
2
This is not an academic issue, nor is it one where there is evil on both sides. Pointing the finger at both sides is what Trump did after Charlottesville. Many policies promoted by Republicans are evil.
1
@David: "Evil" is an ad hominem. I prefer to call Republican conduct "bad faith". It is based on many unproven and dis-proven beliefs.
Edsall this is utter nonsense.
Republicans use racism to get votes, Democrats do not.
Republicans started using racism in 1968 with the invention of Nixon's "Southern-Strategy". This "strategy" was in response to the Civil Rights legislation of 1964. Its not complicated nor does it have anything to do with "social media", its just sad racism.
1
Congratulations!
Some biology and evolution in a NYT op-ed.
Way to get fundamental!
That's important because: "Initial conditions rule in complex systems." Stewart Brand
(I interviewed Robert Kurzban in 2012 about his book: "Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite")
Allow me to add this fundamental, selected relationship code conserved across myriad species. It generates behavior, especially in survival-stressed environs — & explains, in part, why genocide is a human app.
The selected code is: Fitness is > Truth.
Here's a quote set re Fitness > Truth.
"Fitness and truth are utterly different things."
“Evolution is quite clear, it’s fitness and not truth that gives you the points you need to win in the evolutionary game.”
"Organisms that see the truth go extinct when they compete against organisms that don't see any of the truth at all ... and are just tuned to the fitness function."
"Perception is not about seeing truth; it's about having kids."
Donald Hoffman—UC-Irvine
Let's add some physics.
Collapse, or the rapid and large restructuring of relationships in a network is when-not-if-physics.
This physics is called self-organized criticality. It applies to non-equilibrium (continuously dynamic) systems.
Examples of self-organized criticality: meteor hits, world wars, plagues, stock market crashes, mass extinctions, climate changes, super volcanoes, genocides, etc.
We're in the early stages of the apocalypse.
Rank partisanship is, in part, genocide prepping.
The Horror.
3
@anthropocene2: Self-organizing systems are always less chaotic when they include negative feedback loops.
If we all agreed that physicists study the self-organizing properties of condensed matter and energy transfers, we might begin to organize language the same way.
Steve, I get the first sentence.
I do know this: we don't all agree—variation is fundamental; and genetic code is more fundamental than alphabet / language code, hence, while not fixed, g-code is weighted more than language code because it's more of an initial condition.
Further, I submit that if any of us survive, it won't be a function of consensus.
This whole matter of politics and identity is a lost cause. Most humans today are living in a way that humans did not evolve to live in. I wonder if the way the Hadza in southeastern Africa live, in groups of about thirty with utter freedom to move between groups and each group living semi-nomadically, is more like the way we evolved to live. By all reports, the Hadza are very healthy and well-nourished and are overall a happy people. Maybe this goes some way to showing why our "modern" systems and ideologies are doomed to failure.
1
Interesting and scary article. I think it’s missing something important, though. I’m not a political partisan as described in the article. I just want to live a free life. The “other side” has made LGBTI people targets of purging, refusals of service, emotional abuse and physical violence. Wanting to be free of this abuse and discrimination is natural. I’m not going to let people in my community get hurt if I can help it. I don’t want other innocent people getting hurt, either, like children in ICE detention. I’d also like to save some other species from mass extinction, the other-than-human version of genocide. The article makes it sound like “both sides” are equally to blame. But who is instigating the violence and discrimination? Not people like me.
4
I believe that many people have turned their political ideology into a form of religion with everything that implies.
3
Another thoughtful editorial by Thomas Edsall, who marshalls facts and expert opinion to buttress his arguments. The partisanship that we now see in our politics and social scene is preventing our delegated representatives from legislating in a constructive way, silencing debate so that our social conversations are like tribal mantras instead of reasoned arguments, and leading to the situation in which the accepted ideas gravitate toward the extremes as moderates are accused of being disloyal when they try to cooperate with "the other side." When violence is committed in the name of "silencing hate" or "protecting our religious values" we know that logic and reason and even simple empathy toward our fellow human beings are losing out. Academics may be identifying these trends, but our political leaders and the media are feeding into them. Edsall does us all a service by bringing this analysis into the mainstream forum.
1
Where to start? This article takes "both sides do it" to an extreme.
Pinker: "our moralizing does not consist in pondering how to ... bring about the greatest good for the greatest number." The Democrats are trying to do just that, but are demonized by the right-wing as socialists, playing "identity politics" and giving away "free stuff".
John Hibbing points to "in-group versus out-group" dynamics. Do Republican voters really think they are members of the "in-group" of the billionaire donor class? Does Hibbing think Democrats are all in lock-step as members of their "in-group"?
And this: "While as recently as 30 years ago, there were a fair number of conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans ...." There still are many conservative Democrats, but where are all the liberal Republicans? They left the party and now are all Independents, or conservative Democrats. Does he really think Obama or the Clintons are extreme leftys?
No, it's not both sides; it's just the Republicans who have gone to the extremes described in this article. In fact, the only thing unifying Democrats today is Republican extremism.
4
Maybe Tooby has handed us the key to our cell by writing: "Honest reasoning about issues is inconsistent with group loyalty." How do we go about achieving this honest reasoning? First, state your opponent's position fairly and accurately, without caricature. Second, explain, by reasoned argument, why you believe your opponent is partly or fully mistaken--and in so doing, genuinely meet your opponent's points instead of talking past your opponent. Do those two things without disrespect or rancor. If you have difficulty fashioning a logically coherent argument, maybe you should reconsider your opposition to your opponent's position. For a fuller description of this strategy, read They Say/I Say by Graf and Birkenstaff.
2
@Mark - What you say has merit, but it lacks practicality. The deep partisanship discussed in the article cannot be solved in any short term sense by making people more reasonable. That won't happen without a systemic, generation-long massive commitment to teaching media awareness. The current landscape allows people to ensconce themselves in media that affirms their confirmation bias. Only by teaching people from a young age to properly gauge the integrity of their media sources can this mass phenomena of deluded citizens be overcome. You can't outlaw Fox News, but you can teach people to consider the source.
1
@Rob You argue that we must teach people, from a young age, to assess the integrity of media sources so that they will not hunker down in a propagandistic echo chamber such as Fox News and succumb to confirmation bias. I agree, but I would maintain that even that educational project entails teaching students how to make a reasoned argument. If all they can do is talk past one another and call the other side names, integrity will be precisely the quality that they lack.
So, this study didn't report the sex of the people in favor of violence, but the academics are quoting sex ("men's testosterone levels") as a relevant factor to violence. This is the standard "have your testosterone and eat it, too" argument among male scholars who like to view testosterone as a "defining difference" among the sexes but fail to connect that difference to political outcomes that might suggest that "men" are less suited to social harmony.
2
How much of this is reinforced by the rising importance of competitive sports in our social diet - where teams are 'the opposition' rather than 'the opponent'. The winner gloats. The loser is mocked. Less and less shaking of hands at the end of the game.
1
Interesting article. There were a couple of things that I didn't expect: that Democrats seem more likely to accept violence as a legitimate response, and that informed voters are more partisan. I suppose that last shouldn't have surprised me though, since the more engaged you are with something, the more easily you're affected by it.
2
No. This is not the world I see. I have friends who are anti-abortion but are in my Citizens Climate Lobby. . I have Republican friends who are in my Moms Demand Action gun safety group. I have Trumpites in my Art Museum volunteer outreach group to help Head Start kids. My local Sanctuary Rising immigration group includes a Republican woman. Pope Francis wrote the Encyclical on Climate Change but does not allow female priests. The
I do not mean this as a Kumbya statement. Fox News has done much to push the right wing. Abortion was not a hugely divisive issue until some Republicans in the past realized it could be used politically. Trump realized the political magic of racism and immigration for him. Exxon knew many years ago about the reality and the causes of climate change but donated millions to Republicans to keep this information mum.
So I am saying the right wing exploited these divisive issues for political gain-lower taxes and corporate power. I am also saying that I do not like the psychological stuff about people as groups. The fault lays in corporations and Fox News, not in individual people .
5
Mr. Edsall's essay is misguided insofar as it completely omits consideration of the substance of our collective debates, as if it were not such a big deal to people whether one side or another gets to govern. But during the past two years we all have seen that there really are big differences, and that they matter a lot, to the point of being existential in nature.
The US has been through other existential crises before, to the point that its people were even literally up in arms. As Lincoln said, "Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived [in liberty] and so dedicated [to the proposition that all men are created equal], can long endure."
Maybe Mr. Edsall will agree that it was best that President Lincoln was an extremist to the point of violence regarding slavery, and that so too were the Founding Fathers regarding independence from England. The principles they were defending were that important, and the positions held by their opponents were that repugnant. We may not be in exactly the same situations now, but things are getting awfully close to that by the day.
1
Back in the day, I’d read the WSJ and a few other conservative sources to understand their viewpoints/reasoning on a given issue. Now, I simply cannot find a credible conservative outlet.
The left is headed in the same direction, but, not as far gone as the right (yet). More and more, though, as I read my NYT and WaPo, I see increasing numbers of articles and op-Ed pieces that attack or ridicule some conservative person or viewpoint. I found that all of this simply wasn’t helping me think , and, it left me deeply worried.
About a year ago, I stopped watching ALL news on TV, and, cut back substantially on what I read in the print/online media. I’m filling the free time with periods of independent thought and reflection.
1
@Patrick alexander
I cut the cable about 10 years ago, so I never see what passes for news shows these days. I consider myself much saner now.
1
If you believe that government authority is almost always evil, and that society should be shaped by the conventional moral choices of individuals, then you will have consistent positions on school choice, abortion, illegal immigration, and a whole host of other issues. If you believe that government has a legitimate role in promoting justice and opportunity for its citizens, and that personal freedom should be accommodated whenever it is not an injustice to others, you will have consistent positions on the other side of those issues. If each party represents one of those beliefs and promotes the values consistent with it, what does it mean to say that I'm just choosing my positions and candidates based on partisanship? It seems to me that it is the person clinging to a party affiliation despite that party being inconsistent with the person's values -- gay Republicans, say, or Never-Trumpers -- who are being irrationally partisan.
Based on some of the characeristics of the samples, in addition to their relatively small size (1000 and 1215), I'd be more cautious about these conclusions. Particularly troublesome is the overrepresentation of evangelicals. The narrative asserts that data weighting compensates for this, but any meaningful weighting will have to compromise the representational integrity of the sample. When a statistically significant portion of the sample includes those who believe in nonsense, some conclusions will also include nonsense.
2
Missing in this analysis is the role of the elite college system, where extreme notions identity and polarization are often taught as gospel. Many people on the left, especially college grads under 40, are deeply indoctrinated in "critical theory" and gender studies, which breaks reality down to levels of "socially constructed privilege". According to this theory, there is not opinion or alternate perspective, just "oppression": either you give it or you receive it depending on your "privilege". Political moderates, white males, older people or just free thinkers are simply agents of oppression, not individuals with free will, so wishing them dead or gone is entirely appropriate.
2
@keith Most social science teaches the classics of the field. Weber, Durkheim, Freud. American social science is mostly Durkheim: quantitative empiricism supported by by British and American analytic philosophy. It's the continental tradition of Germany and France that is critical theory. While it has been taught in America since the 60s, the upper echelons of power in America, the corporate boardrooms, are basically the same.
1
We really can't discuss polarization and cognitive bias divorced from the merits of the positions of the two sides. If global warming really is a slow-moving but existential threat...if 'trickle down' tax theory really is a callous lie...if denying health coverage to 24 million people really would kill thousands of them per year...then yes, I absolutely have to be on guard against groupthink and dehumanizing my political opponents, but 'that is evil' is nonetheless something they need to hear. Moral language can be a thrown stone -or- an invitation to shared humanity. Fighting the effects of bad actors while remaining open to them (or more realistically, their children) as potential converts is a challenge of spiritual discipline. Remaining self-critical and honest in the face of viral norms escalation is a challenge of intellectual discipline and fortitude. But at the end of the day we have to hold the lines that matter: science, though fallible, is our best guide to what to believe about the world. The outcomes of policy for people must determine the value of the policy. Destroying communal institutions in the name of getting one's own way is not okay. Polarization is not just a function of incestuous groupthink, it's also a function of a coalition of bad acting interest groups embracing the objectively unacceptable.
2
I've been having nightmares about this every night, literally. I have no idea how to fix it. I live in a rural area in a red state. Democrats are about 20% of the voters here. I feel as if neighbors and co-workers are constantly profiling me, trying to figure out if I'm one of "Them." My neighbors (and co-workers) are also armed. My neighbors fire their guns, like a hundred rounds, every sunny weekend afternoon. I guess they're "practicing" for the coming war. I don't see Democrats preparing for violent conflict. Instead, we are lobbying our representatives at the state house to NOT pass permitless carry, among other things. Women don't want this war, at least Democratic women don't. I just want our neighborhood to go back to how it was in the early 80s, when it didn't matter what party you voted for, or whether you went to church, or if you thought the Earth was 5000 years old. It's not just hatred that's poisoning the discourse; it's just plain willfull ignorance. We are going BACKWARDS, not forwards.
8
Meanwhile,our oceans are dying. Human extinction in not only inevitable but desirable. We stupid.
6
I find this one of the most depressing articles I've read in a long time. Maybe somebody just take this old-sick-dog-of-a-society out behind the barn and put it out of its misery. Good god, idiots everywhere you turn. Makes me think being old ain't such a bad thing after all....
2
A remarkable article, base on remarkable studies. Remarkable, in what way? The authors throughout pose as serious, scientific thinkers. That's good! Yet, of course, there is an elephant (!) in the room. IF you believe that science is a worthy enterprise, AND you agree that an overwhelming scientific consensus is almost certainly true, THEN the IPCC conclusions on climate change are true. If you deny this, you deny science--and you are dooming future generations to an absolutely horrifying fate. This might, just might, have something to do with the deep animosity so many of us feel toward the GOP! It is remarkable that the author, and the scholars he cites, never mention this "elephant." It is typical of the denialism that so plagues mainstream discourse. It is typical, also, of the "both-sides-ism" that contributes to our inability to act to stave off catastrophe.
7
What's the craziest part about all of this? The fact that today is a period of unprecedented unanimity about the actual, underlying issues.
Nationwide, support for the new restriction against insurance companies discriminating against people with pre-existing medical conditions is over 75%, including 58% of registered Republicans.
Increasing spending on both Medicare and Medicaid gets large bi-partisan majorities in the polls.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/26/few-americans-support-cuts-to-most-government-programs-including-medicaid/
The USA is an energetic and often aggressive country with huge regional, religious, economic, racial and ethnic differences. When we have an external enemy, we often unite to protect ourselves and the country. Lacking an external enemy, we quickly and viciously turn on each other. I've seen this movie before; the Clinton years.
1
We don't need to be completely Trump-obsessed, but we do need to be Trump-concerned. While praising the intelligence of the American electorate, Trump secretly knows that they can be led around like bulls with nose rings - only instead of bullrings, he uses their beliefs and prejudices to lead them wherever he wants. The times are too dangerous to be led by a demagogue who gets his intelligence briefings from the echo of Fox news.
Everyone admits that it would be insane for either side to launch their nuclear arsenals against the other. Few, however, see the insanity in placing ourselves in a position where MAD is not only possible, but probably inevitable. If we are to pull away from the ridiculous posture we've now assumed, there will need to be a paradigm shift in human thought around the world, and particularly in the United States and Russia. If not, we are doomed.
In the near future, we will program the human mind in the computer based on a linguistic "survival" algorithm, which will provide irrefutable proof as to how we trick the mind with our ridiculous beliefs about what is supposed to survive - producing minds programmed de facto for destruction. These minds see the survival of a particular belief as more important than the survival of all. When we understand this, we will begin the long trek back to reason and sanity.
See RevolutionOfReason.com
It is not a matter of good versus evil, or moral versus immoral. It is about ignorance, some of it willful. A substantial percentage of Republicans deny that urgent action on climate change is necessary. We are already at disaster stage, are headed for catastrophe, and (according to a recent estimate) have about a 1 in 20 chance of extinction of human beings. So we are justified in being upset that Republican ignorance may doom the human race. All the rest of the debates pale in comparison.
2
What you've done is prove that bullies exist across the political spectrum. Perhaps instead of blaming partisanship (since bullies appear on both sides of the aisle) we should look to a media culture that profits off of inciting fear and normalizing violence as well as internet pornography, which also normalizes violence and bullying as the standard for intimate relations.
Ah, rediscovering the classic 1954 Robbers Cave Experiment by social psychologist Muzafer Sherif.
Mr. Edsall seems to leave voters holding the bag for their political leaders. As a Democrat, I am not angry about Republican views on the budget (though I certainly hold other values), I am angry about how Republican leadership (yes you, McConnell, Ryan, Nunes, Rick Scott, Kris Kobach, et al.) have stolen Supreme Court seats, questioned the birthplace of a Black president, gerrymandered districts, taken away voting rights, refused to hold votes, supported racism, and spewed hatred toward Democratic leaders (yes you, Trey Gowdy). Yer darn right I think these people are evil.
5
I can tell you from first hand experience that the Intelligence Community, with its extraordinary powers over individuals it designates as "risks", is no less politically polarized. Think Cointelpro again--still?--but with the internet.
"Intelligence agencies by their nature operate in near-impenetrable secrecy, mask their sources and methods, and collect information against people not even suspected of wrongdoing. They use deception as a primary tool and seek to disrupt the activities of those they perceive as enemies of the state, rather than prosecute them. Often their victims never know how their fortunes changed and, even if they suspect government interference, don’t have a legal means to challenge it." Michael German, former FBI agent
https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-fix-fbi-it-shouldnt-be-intelligence-agency
Perhaps a better question, at least from my old Democrat position instead of whether "they agreed with the statement that members of the opposition party “are not just worse for politics — they are downright evil”, should be whether the other side cares about the future of their country or even the planet. Certainly few Republican voters, well over 80% of which still support Trump, are actually evil. But because the majority of that group gets their "information" only from Fox News, now certifiably the most lying news outlet in the world, they cannot and will not use their ability to see reason in any sense of the word. It is difficult for these ideologically driven people to see the forest for the trees, and so the country will suffer, perhaps irrevocably forever. That does make this old Democrat sad. I guess that makes me "psycho".
1
I didn't vote for George W. Bush and I thought he was not up to the job of being President, but I didn't come close to hating him.
Trump is like nothing we've had before in the Presidency. He is the epitome of "unfit" from a moral standpoint, and by moral I'm not talking about sex, but character. He is a vile human being.
The fact that McConnell and Sycophants won't rein Trump in makes it very difficult to have any generous feelings towards the Republican Party.
2
No need for a study or questionnaire...
Just scan your FaceBook feed.
Mr. Edsall’s columns are routinely among the most substantial contributions to understanding our current situation to be found in all of American letters. Thank you for publishing them.
"The answers, published in ... “Lethal Mass Partisanship,” were startling, but maybe they shouldn’t have been."
With the considerable respect that is due Mr Edsall and his work - and tangential to the always desirable broadcasting of such data and inferences therefrom and hypothesis based thereon - this observer, in his eighth decade and not a historian and, unlike Yogi Bear, who does not believe himself smarter than the average bear, flummoxed by the suggestion that the answers "maybe" should not be startling.
Yes, maybe the answers are not as thoroughly explored as they could/will ultimately be. Yes, I fully concur in the need to test the apparent inapplicability of certain disciplines to a better understanding of the answers. Still gotta wonder: to whom exactly are the answers startling?
And to go what may be a step too far for some, feel as though those who aspire to positions of political and social responsibility have got to not only not be startled by the answers, but also be pledged on an important level to overcoming their self-evidently destructive implications.
The author and the academics seem to categorize solely around partisanship and tribe rather than around issues and independent positions on moral decisions facing our society.
Yet the demographics indicate that 42% of American voters claim to be Independents, who are more ideologically driven than by strict party allegiance. True, the two major parties coalesce around more liberal and conservative viewpoints, which drive the voting decisions into seemingly reflecting and accepting the entire creed of partisan positions. The results do not adequately reflect the entirety of Independent thinking.
This article seems one dimensional in its use of the words "partisan" and "tribal".
2
I see something else happening.
For generations our society has been controlled by white, heterosexual males. In the last 60 years or so (my lifetime) this has been changing (as a result of long struggle by those excluded).
As some real inclusion starts to happen, those who used to benefit and those who were deeply invested in that paradigm feel under siege and fight back. It is a struggle to determine whether our society will be truly inclusive or go back to a white, male, mostly Christian model. This feels like life and death for both sides.
As for the sets of issues that don't seem related to the authors - abortion, climate change, immigration etc. - I do see a connection between them, or a larger set of values that they fall under. Compassion and care, harm reduction, independence/equality/economic and social justice for all and attention to the collective good connect those issues.
Be careful that, under the guise of academic studies, we don't wind up just promoting the ubiquitous false equivalence. Maybe there is a legitimate serious conflict of values here and not just "tribalism."
6
Ho hum. Why don't you carry out the actually important research on whether Democratic or Republican values and policies actually help everyone in this country flourish? If you did that, I bet you would find that the Republican politicians currently in office are, by virtually all empirical evidence, causing harm to a large proportion of the country in ways that Democrats just don't. Quit it with the centrist false equivalencies and address the actual impacts of what happens when Democrats and Republicans govern. I would be very surprised if you found that Republicans are good for poor people, people of color, women, LGBT people, Muslims, and other devalued groups in our country. I certainly don't want to hurt Republicans but I want them to stop hurting me and the social groups to which I belong.
10
I have watched since Reagan and have questioned and questioned Republican behavior. An anti labor stance came early. Being from Illinois, evidently Republicans will not stop until the last labor union is dead. I give you the behavior of former Governor Rauner as evidence. The anti abortion movement is a textbook of resistance politics giving the minority voice great success. Systemic racism exists and is obvious in voter suppression, injustice in our courts, and in our incarceration system - promoted by Republicans. The personal rights of the LGBTQ community are resisted. Burdening the Post Office with the debt of future retirements well into the future is a sad example of Republicans willing to kill government services. Placing the military over social programs is traditional Republican thinking that helps support income inequality and we all know the Republicans have done much to enhance income equality through the lack of regulation of the financial world and "socialism for big business". McConnell has done a great deal to kill traditional democratic traditions creating his place in the history books as the traitor to democracy that he is. Blocking climate change reforms in favor of big oil may be the most egregious of their policies. Yes, Democrats have had to have been complicit; but, I do not see them promoting the policies.
9
Thanks Illinois !
1
When I talk to ordinary citizens of either major party, both sides are reasonable, honest, and good. Social media, and the press to some extent, have exaggerated our different political leanings as they both feed off differences.
However, having said that, both parties are terribly misinformed on THE existential threat of our times - Global Warming. Unless we act IMMEDIATELY to bring Carbon emissions to zero, we, as a species, face extinction.
8
@Cal Page:
Human extinction would in fact be a God-send and a blessing for the rest of the living world. Humans are, without doubt, the greatest mortal threat to all other living things, due to our rapacious greed and out-of-control reproduction.
Unfortunately, I don't think it (human extinction) is going to happen. There are too darn many of us in too many out of the way nooks and crannies of the planet, and we're too darn clever for our own good.
However, I do think a massive, massive collapse in food webs and hence civilization is bound to occur in the coming decades. The question will be how many humans remain and what, if any, lessons will have been learned from the inevitable melt-down.
In case it's not clear already, let me summarize: I'm not optimistic.
2
I was a very dedicated leftist in the sixties, seventies and eighties. I was a leader in the Students for a Democratic Society, very active in the anti-war movement and associated groups.
One of the things I witnessed was the intense partisanship and outpouring of anger amongst us.
As Byron Katie famously said, If you really want to experience hate, go to an anti-war demonstration.
The right and the left both have true believers and many are acting out their anger, fear and irrational feelings in the name of their causes.
Recently we have witnessed how this is tearing apart the Dems with Ilhan Omar, Tlaib and the Black caucus and their refusal to accept a resolution condemning anti-Semitism and their conflation of Israel and Jews and Jews as disloyal.
Their definitions of politically correct remind me of the madness of the left I experienced, the towing of the party line.
Crazies on both sides.
4
@simon sez:
Your experience in SDS biases you to think in false equivalencies. That was a crazy, truly radical organization, though the Port Huron Statement shows it was perhaps begun with good intent - the usual road to Hell.
Very few of today's progressive Democrats are that radical. They only seem to be because the Republican Right has dragged the nation so far in an extreme direction that is called "conservative" but which is, in fact, anything but.
Conservatives just want to be left alone and worship God and raise their families in peace. They don’t care if the liberals want to huddle together in their cold, godless cities and practice their heathen religion. It’s the liberals who want to convert everyone to be like them. So who is most responsible if violence ensues?
@Greg
This comment is a perfect example of the marginalization now taking place in our society in the form of "us v. them".
And the real problem here is that Conservatives want to do far more than just "be left alone and worship God and raise their families in peace."
If that were the case, there'd be no need to call others heathens.
3
Could your comment be more biased? Ungodly Dems. Conservatives with values to raise their children in peace. Kids caged. Judgement passed on all “others” that’s so Christian. Ha
2
Is that what the Trump supporters who are pamphleting colleges and high schools and temples and homes across the nation with Nazi propaganda are doing—trying to be left alone? Is that what Unite the Right did in Charlottesville when they murdered and attacked people who stood up to Nazism? Is that what Robert Bowers did in the Pittsburgh synagogue when he massacred 11 worshippers? The pipe bomb suspect? The Coast Guard officer?
All on the right. Be honest and own it.
2
I have a problem with the implied definition of "better informed". Most issues on which there is disagreement are complex with risks and benefits to various courses of action. A well informed individual would be able to appreciate the arguments on both sides. Amassing large amounts of information to bolster one's biases is not the same as being well informed. Sophistry is not wisdom.
2
This gets to the heart of our dilemma. fortunately, the problem cannot be resolved on an intellectual level. The proof of this is the fact that some of the worst offenders are those who warn against the evils of "binary" thinking while preaching nonstop about the need for respecting the "other" and ridding ourselves of "us versus them" thinking.
The comments here perfectly illustrate Edsall's point: the great majority vilify the right while absolving the left of any responsibility. The left is Good, the right is Evil, there is no room in the middle for open-hearted discussion and attempts to understand each other.
So depressing.
4
@JBR
Read more comments. That knife cuts both ways.
1
This is why leadership matters. Why setting an example matters. Why speaking with intelligence and compassion matters. People will follow or assume the mantle of the leader they have.
The fish rots from the head.
4
The primary driver of violent tendencies is identity politics. Republicans don’t do identity politics. Tribalism is the exclusive province of the left. And it IS “evil”.
Conservatives don’t march, riot, or shout down the opposition. They expressly reject identity politics. And it’s precisely that rejection that infuriates leftists. The left obsesses about pigment, plumbing, and sexual predilection, and is simply incapable of grasping the conservative view that such things are politically irrelevant. To the left, one’s race, sex, or bed partners are deeply political statements. And they react, violently, to those who disagree.To a leftist, political disagreement represents a personal attack. They react accordingly.
Conservatives believe that ideas, not emotions, matter. They are perfectly happy to let leftists establish communes, kibbutzim, and collectives to their hearts’ content, provided that they don’t attempt to force us to live that way.
Leftists do not return the favor, and will not be happy until they force everyone to live as they believe proper. In short, the left regards freedom as a problem to be solved.
Too, while conservatives correctly believe that socialism is evil and lots of socialists exist, leftists believe, delusionally, that racism (etc.) is widespread. They’re right that it’s evil; but it’s also spectacularly rare, so uncommon that the left has to invent it via hoaxes.
So, no, there is no equivalence here. The problem is exclusively on the left.
3
Hmm. Those rt winged nationalists marching at Charlottesville. How do you make such a sweeping distortion or reality.
5
The right solicits and welcomes the support of, and also elects, white supremacists and Nazi-sympathizers, and uses blatantly racist and anti/Semitic propaganda in their election campaigns. At least we know now what kind of people that messaging appeals to: conservatives/the right/Trump supporters.
4
@Brenda
Elaboration on comment's apparent major premise that "The primary driver of violent tendencies is identity politics," wb helpful.
Also helpful, is there an equivalence between tribalism and IP and are they coextensive.
For extra credit: "Conservatives believe that ideas, not emotions, matter." Anecdotal experience suggests to me at least, that at least sometimes emotions do matter. More on that useful too.
2
There is something disturbingly wrong with this essay, in its starting presumptions, reasoning processes and implied conclusions. We live in an era where partisan and social media regularly reinforce one another to create virtual mobs whose members are kept in an emotionally hijacked state that subverts the authority of reason in service of primal emotions. The survey questions themselves presume and reinforce such a hijacked state by positing the validity of such things as the death/murder of the "evil/dangerous others" you disagree with. In fact, Twitter/Facebook mobs in countries with a weaker grip on the rule of law have already been reported to have gone on rampages against the "evil/dangerous others" in their communities. Maybe it's time to turn off these algorithmic hate amplifiers that have taken hold of our lives so that we no longer operate from an emotionally hijacked state, especially, it seems, in academia.
3
Honestly, these are leading questions in political surveys with an agenda and should never be asked of a populace.
This type of data collection is not just dangerous it’s “evil”.
They are designed to illicit shock value and are just part of a sensationalist media culture.
Ask reasonable questions and you’ll get reasonable answers.
I for one am sick of it.
3
Like so much of this writers nonsense, the underlying assumption is both sides have valid policies and both are to blame for the state of affairs.
However; one side has provided cover for massive corruption, Russian election interference, gerrymandering, climate denial, taken a wrecking ball to healthcare, and is supporting the normalization of white nationalism and institutional racism.
This author, like other ‘thinking’ conservatives at this moment in time, can’t come to terms with the bankruptcy of Reagan’s legacy and thus believe it’s both sides creating a crisis of democracy - and some moderate compromises are all that’s required to set things right.
So... could someone show me where the middle of this catastrophe is? Just a little racism? Ignoring only 50% of scientific evidence? Maybe in lieu of gerrymandering we can go back to counting some people of color as 3/5ths of a human - you know - just as a compromise as we work through it.
I just love the mushy middle - it’s just the perfect place for democracy to die.
4
Interesting discussion but surprising for its lack of critical thinking on a fundamentl issue. From where do people get their information? The assertion that more partisan-minded people are the ones who are more informed begs the question: are they really informed? or mis-informed? Read "The Making of the Fox News White House" by Jane Mayer in The New Yorker. The MAGA crowd gets its "information" from a decidedly partisan propaganda outlet masquerading as objective journalism. Together with a president who fans the flames of willful ignorance with his routine chants of fake news and witch hunts, we are witnessing a dumbing down of the zombie base who still support the Grifter-in-Chief. These are dangerous times. As long as The Times is willing to devote so much space to a discussion about "lethal partisanship" it does its readers a disservice to leave out of the discussion even a hint of what is sketched in above.
4
But, but, but - this completely contradicts the column written by Paul Krugman yesterday which stated that hate in politics was solely in the domain of right-wingers consumed by "resentment". So who to believe - the Nobel Prize winning economist who relied solely on his own anecdotal evidence or Mr. Edsall who relied on empirical data? I look forward to reading the comments section where Mr. Edsall will no doubt be vilified by leftist Torquemadas for the heresy of contradicting their how-dare-you-doubt-us orthodoxy.
1
Trump has been threatening violence by his base if he is impeached. I believe that Pelosi had this in mind when she decided not to impeach Trump.This is more likely to occur by Republicans that include Nazi’s ,militia’s & gun toters.Politics is akin to religion and millions have been killed in God’s name.The Communist rebellion in Russia was responsible for the death of thousands on both sides.This is certainly possible in America.
It could still happen if Trump is defeated in 2020, if he blames it on a rigged election.
5
As a Buddhist, I try to see the Buddha nature in everyone. Trump and his Red Hats sure do make it hard.
4
Great picture on the front of this essay. I suppose that’s just a easy thing to see. It’s horrible any woman would carry it.
1
This is the most important and least discussed issue in American politics. It will, of course, be widely ignored as it does little to appeal to either side in polarized America.
A few concerns: John Hibbing dismisses the notion that polarization stems from changes in the media environment. This ignores the viewpoint of cultural evolution, which sees competing cultures as organisms in their own right, mutating and evolving according to the principles of natural selection. In this view, humans provide only an ecosystem for cultural organisms that must compete for survival. The features of this ecosystem, including “hot wired” attributes like group identity, xenophobia, self-preservation etc, constrain the propagation of some cultural memes and allow others to flourish. Advances that speed cultural transmission (conquest, printing, broadcast, internet) accelerate the process of natural selection and there can be little doubt that the current media environment moves at speeds that are orders of magnitude faster than our cultural species have ever encountered. It cannot be a coincidence that extreme polarization is rising in lockstep with the dizzying propagation of digital vectors.
I was also troubled by Leda Cosmides’ injection of “evil motives” into an otherwise rational discussion. The implication of some universally acknowledged morality is at odds with the necessary impartiality of scientific inquiry.
2
Let’s ignore all the emotionally-charged policy issues we face in the country and address just this one item: Voting rights, and building an electoral system where the most people are allowed to vote, and have their vote matter (see: Electoral College, gerrymandered districts).
Partisan rancor? Either you’re in favor of democracy, or you’re not. And we know where Mitch McConnell and his ilk stand on this matter.
The correlation between war and politics is a disturbing (but appropriate) revelation. Given that the US seems to be perpetually engaged in warfare (we now have a younger generation who will vote in 2020 who were born during the ongoing war in Afghanistan, for example) is not a harbinger for optimism on the political front, either.
1
Does anyone remember an article in the NY Times Magazine from the middle 90s about the 'end of partisanship'? Yes, in 1996 or so, nobody cared about politics any more. Everyone was getting rich and living well, and regarded the antics of the politicians in Washington as an amusing clown show.
However, things have changed. Old age for the baby boomers, a few financial crashes, and everyone is grumpy and ready to pick a fight. I see most of the commenters on this article are all for fighting, provided their side wins.
But reality is powerful. As long as the split is 50-50, nobody will prevail. And as long as we are an advanced industrial country where everyone can live well, nobody will go too far. Actual violence is steadily decreasing, even as the storms in the Twitter-sphere grow more violent.
I predict most people will eventually get bored with the whole thing.
Fortunately, most of us know, even love, persons who hold political views opposite our own. Surveys are abstractions. Relationships are actual connections. Group identities have more holes than swiss cheese. Conclusions based on the surveys seem far fetched.
Voters relying on infotainment, mis- and dis-information to make their decisions are problematic, though some only in the short run, for a portion of them will likely to be peeled off as the bulk of our mass media has a higher degree of information proving true in the long run. That's the course we're on, despite polls showing Trump voters as seemingly unshakeable.
Reforms will commence after the votes are counted and the messy Democratic party, representing more people holding varied views, wins.
Must we scare ourselves? Incremental improvements are more likely than any manifestations of a second civil war.
3
The Democrats are so angry they lost the 2016 presidential election. They still have not gotten over it. Not to say that I am a Republican, I am a supporter of Trump irregardless of party, but when the Republicans lost in 2008 and 2012, they did not express such vitriol, they just waited for the crisis to pass, because they knew it their time would come. In the meantime, they stonewalled all of Obama's initiatives, especially his attempt to pack the SC with liberals. Those of us who opposed Obama and his liberal agenda held out because we knew better times were over the horizon. And they were and they came in the election of Donald J. Trump. Good things do come to those who wait! I support the President. I support Trump. America first, not last! MAGA! Thank you.
2
The Democrats I know are not angry that a Republican won. They are angry that a man as loathesome as Trump won.
8
@Southern Boy
Anyone who posts under a location of CSA -- or CONFEDERATE STATES of AMERICA, already makes anything they have to say a challenge to read without knowing full well beforehand what they will say.
At least in that regard, you have not failed to disappoint.
6
@NB,
Good point. Then why did the Democrats run someone against him who is equally if not more loathsome? Trump is the lesser of two evils. Thank you.
I enjoyed this thought provoking article very much. It’s quite concerning to me that loyalty to your tribe is so prevalent, and this prevents any rational discussion, or compromise, on the challenges we face. It’s like when we choose a sports team, and stay loyal to that team no matter what.
I stay pretty well informed, and I can usually substantiate my opinions and views rationally and calmly. It’s completely frustrating that persons I agree or disagree with cannot do the same, and just fall back to talking points or cliches they have heard elsewhere. I long for the days when rational people could disagree amicably and the uninformed didn’t have social media to demonstrate their ignorance.
1
frankly, i do not accept or believe, even with nuance, that democrats have declared violence to republicans. further, that an argument is made based on that as premise is a false argument, false conclusion.
1
What's missing from this analysis is the effect of political opinion leaders. There is scant mention of Trump, no mention of Gingrich, and the effects of hyper-partisan Fox is treated as if it is an independent organ rather than an operation designed and functioning to repeat the most extreme Republican talking points. Behind the scenes are wealthy ideologues funding political operatives and sources gladly mouthing these positions.
As it is, this article describes an anthill without any appreciation of the underlying dynamics within.
8
It comes down to:
"My (party, leader, whatever), right or wrong. Especially when (he, she, it) is wrong.
False equivalence. Push polling. Ask why the advocates believe as they do. Compare the positions of the two parties on a number of issues to see where the disagreements arise. You will, if you choose, see things in a different light. Of course, if your devotion to False Equivalence is a religious one, I doubt that you will so choose.
4
We hear a lot about addiction to opioids, but anger itself can be addicting. It confers instant group membership and in a scary world provides us with a ready bloc of allies. Better still, the supply is unlimited and it's free. But like any other drug, what first seems beneficial eventually destroys us from the inside out.
3
A very interesting and challenging sentence in Mr. Edsall's typically challenging opinion piece is the following: "Moral condemnation and approbation can both be useful to encourage productive cooperation within a group, but they can also be deeply destructive when used to demonize and humiliate outsiders."
This is hard to dispute but the obvious question follows about how to respond when the other side is truly morally reprehensible in a manner that is supported by objective evidence? The kicker is that proponents of the other side claim the exact same thing about the leadership that I support whether I (or they) are right or wrong.
The bottom line is that I am right and they are wrong. That said, the ultimate judgment rests in the hands of those game winners who have power, so the losing side will boil in the bilious stew of justice denied. I hope to rise out of my funk on January 21st 2021.
2
Another factor is a lack of hope. What the GOP is doing to the nation is evil in that it causes unnecessary suffering for the vast majority of the citizenry, whether they recognize it or not. That does not imply that the Democrats are the perfect positive force. They seem to be, at most, a tool to stave off the worst possible results of the GOP's approach to governing.
For me, the result is not a wish to engage in violence. I get that people don't really follow the political process. I also get that politicians are just trying to earn a living. On the other hand, it makes me want to leave for a place where the political winds seem favorable to a peaceful existence - fully aware that it's a fleeting situation.
3
@Warren: Every problem is more lucrative to fund-raise over than to fix.
2
Until one of the major causes of this anger and divide is recognized, acknowledged and atoned for we will continue down this road. That cause is the Conservative side of the Republican party which for the past 40 or so years has had a systematic campaign, financed by wealthiest of those, to demonize and demean those of the other side and to blame 'others' be they people of color, liberals, Democrats, minorities, women, non-Christian Religions for all the ills of society. We may do the 'both sides' do it routine all went want but it doesn't help.
From Paul Weyrich co-founder of the 'Moral Majority', the Heritage Foundation and ALEC, who stated 'I don't want everyone to vote', from Reagan's 'Welfare Queens', from Newt's 'training tapes for GOP candidates to teach them how to talk about their opponents in derogatory ways', from GHWP's 'Willie Horton' ads, from the 'Obama is not a 'true president', from the Koch Bros creation of 100's of shadow PAC's all with 'patriotic names' supporting the most conservative folks in the Nation, from supporting of 100's of RW talk radio shows, from FOX news, the Rush's, the Hannity's, the Alex Jones' and the Coulter's spewing division 24/7, the fake 'grassroots' Tea Party movement all being propped up by these organizations, etc. there has been a drum beat of 'us vs everyone else' from the Right.
Until there is some change on the Right, the rest of us are powerless to close the divide.
7
One can draw no conclusions from this article except to reinforce the idea that there are vast differences of opinion in many diverse elements. Some of the observed improvements from another time of radicalization in the 1960-70's is that there is much more acceptance of black people, gay people, women as leaders, other ethnicities, et al. Those of the older generations are keeping the forward thinking from advancing with their antiquated ideas of differences, racial hatred, warmongering themes, white is right, science is baloney. Christianity, intelligence is baloney, mine not ours mentality. Nothing has changed really and never will until the old generation is gone.
3
@Betsy Herring I hope you look back on your contempt for the wisdom of older people when mass migration has melted civilization down into multicultural chaos. The young left knows not the whirlwind it is sowing.
1
Perhaps we should not be surprised at the sorts of tribalism that are described in this article, as I imagine that such ways of being have existed among groups for thousands of years.
What's not explored in this article is what tends to occur when group members find themselves thrust into a position of having to support a leader who is corrupt, or otherwise unsuitable for the job of leadership.
When outsiders challenge such chosen leaders, perhaps it becomes psychologically necessary for partisanship to ramp up to levels not often seen before, in comparison to times when group members were required to support a more suitable leader.
3
Timely commentaries like this one are always important to appreciate unappreciated and threatening circumstances in which people are actually living. And we are now living in a very dangerous period of civil strife boardering on violence ... at least on a fulminating inclination towards that. However, in the history of world this isn’t anything new. Demagogues like Trump have been for years and years well aware of fear strategy and tactics in their quest for domination. The potential for tribalism seems to be basic to the human condition. What is presently really unique, as far as I can see from my American life-experience, is Trump as a national “leader.” He is tearing this nation apart; and reasonable argument for what is best for the nation as a whole has been displaced. Trump has infused the energy of hatred to levels that ought to be frightening to any civilized person. The enemy within is one thing, however; the enemy without, which seems to be a mostly forsaken concern, is another.
3
@wak Wow, you are the perect example for this article. How did "hope and change" work out?.
1
@Jackson
And with all due respect, you are also a perfect example of what this article is talking about.
As for "hope and change" -- it's very much still alive and well.
3
@Jackson
It was blocked by Mitch McConnell, a southern billionaire who benefited from government care after being stricken with polio as a child but wants none of that government help for anyone else. Just like Paul Ryan!
1
When one “side” worms it’s way into power without even winning the popular vote, and then, with an iron fist imposes it’s agenda as if it had a massive mandate, that creates a problem. This might, just might be ameliorated if their representative was manifestly a fully developed thinker with a longstanding articulated and coherent agenda, but when that representative is a functional illiterate whose only agenda is self-aggrandizement, self-enrichment, and a drive to tear down any and everything the previous representative accomplished...that creates a problem. I’m afraid that the sterile tone of equivalency in this essay also creates a problem.
17
@Mike Pod
This is a point which is not explored in this article. How do the partisan demands on a group who has elected an unsuitable leader, differ from those required when the leader they are supporting is more suitable ?
It is these very differences which define much of what we are seeing today.
2
I DO think we would be better off as a country and planet if large numbers of American conservatives left the planet. You could kind of understand the conservatism of W. F. Buckley. So many conservatives of today or Trump supporters seem to just be disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable. If you're for it... I'm against it! So many suffer from Conservative Derangement Syndrome. Old people used to go to the park with their grandchildren or play checkers. Now they sit at a computer all day and night and post False News. The country is stagnating.
5
Or old people like me read parallel reality sources (the Onion) to stay sane, reflective, humorous and critically in bolden.
2
“As recently as 30 years ago, there were a fair number of conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans who held views contrary to the majority of their respective parties...”
Hmm, what happened around 30 years ago? Oh yeah, the FCC did away with the Fairness Doctrine. 22 years ago, FOX News launched. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence though.
9
@RGT The Fairness Doctrine wouldn't have applied to Fox anyway, as Fox News is a cable network and not broadcast over the air.
Not to defend Fox- as the recent article in the New Yorker showed, they're a pure propaganda outlet.
3
@todji - Didn't mean to imply one was a result of the other. They're just both separate media milestones that almost surely contributed to where we are today... a concept this article dismisses, I think, too casually.
The document that’s currently up there is a conference paper. Saying it’s “published” is a little strong. Let’s see what peer review makes of the methodology before clutching our pearls.
4
"Divide and conquer" is not a new phrase. Most people are easily manipulated, and there is profit in it, and political gain (which is tied to profit). The reach of the immoral profit-seekers is greater than ever, with people addicted to their smartphones. And in case you haven't heard, "greed is good," as they teach in the business schools. Never mind what the bible says--it's the economy, stupid.
1
If you read things on the internet that make you think the other side is evil - you are a sucker.
It is no different than the emails we all used to get to send thousand to Nigeria to get millions back.
Everyone knows that only fools did that, but so many people are falling for the same thing now.
2
Anyone who thinks the kind of lethal partisanship we're seeing today is anything new, is most certainly not a student of American History.
This country has been socioeconomically and politically divided since the first days of its founding, but Jonathan Haidt of N.Y.U., really hit the nail on the head by pointing to the effect social media platforms now have by accelerating the pace with which this fragmentation is now able to take place.
There's also no way of getting around the fact that much of the tone of this present hostility is coming from the top, since there is now someone in the White House who thrives on both creating and perpetuating strife here on the home-front, and around the globe.
One doesn't need a host of political and social scientists to know that our country is now standing on shaky ground, a quick look at the news or even at photographs like the one accompanying this article will reveal that.
And it's frightening to think that the only thing that might bring us all back together is some kind of horrific and cataclysmic event, like a war.
Because at present, that's more of a possibility than anyone even dare think about.
3
I guess I should be glad to know that my objections and concerns about the Republican party, and its turn (as it seems to me) toward corruption, theocracy, bigotry, and authoritarianism, are merely the manifestations of my innate need to belong to a group.
6
How to reinstate the Federal Communications Commission Fairness Doctrine (in media)? Abolished in 1987, it’s two basic elements were: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. (Ref: Wikipedia) It was abolished by the Head of the FCC as it supposedly violated free speech rights.
Unfortunately what has emerged is a flavour of each station or network feeding its own targeted market of political leanings that is further amplified by contempt and outrage, something the Fox Network quickly adopted and with the more liberal media following suit in many instances.
Sounds fanciful but is it possible to put a genie back in its bottle?
8
Yes. I love how the researchers acknowledge we weren’t so polarized 30 years ago, then dismiss the possibility of media spreading this disease, saying we’re simply innately tribal. If this is innate, **why were we less polarized 30 years ago?**
1
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties — but right through every human heart and through all human hearts." -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Gulag Archipelago
4
@Brian Zahnd: Between competition and cooperation.
Where is the common ground between people and political parties? Is it clean air and water? The safety of the cities and country? Health care, immigration, drugs, police? Plenty to debate and argue over. One common idea is that most of us will have offspring living on the planet after we're gone. Who thinks that way? Those who want it all now, and leave little or nothing for future generations seem the most selfish of all. Is it even worth while trying to remind them of the damage their grandkids will have to deal with? Wish I had some answers.
Children? Grandchildren? What and who are they? Anyway, who cares; we no longer aspire to "a more perfect union;" we're simply marking time as comfortably as we can.
1
Interesting summary which brings up many valid points. But I think they are all failing to recognize just how much of an impact the Internet has had, as a communication medium, on human behavior.
To begin with this medium allows near instant, and I'm talking milliseconds, for information to be transmitted. And it's not recallable for the most part. Once someone hits the proverbial send button it's out there for all, who happen to be looking, to see, record and respond.
Next is the very nature of the structure of the Internet. Prior to the computer networking age communications between people was pretty structured and not nearly as instantaneous. Telephones, while nearly instantaneous, was not cheap for many years, especially over great distances, so this method precluded wide spread use by all but a small portion of the population. Print, while widespread, was also much more controlled. It costs money, and lots of it, to reach large amounts of a populace. But, just like personal options, there still were outlets that represented a wide range of ideas. To still appeal to a larger audience they all knew they could not survive by just focusing on their pet peeves. After all they required sales to stay in business. And not just copy sales, but advertising revenue as well.
Now, though, anyone can be a publisher and distributor of content. This allows one to consume a much narrower range of ideas. Which exacerbates the tribalism that's always been around.
1
@Mark: Internet pioneers believed that instant global communications would dissolve silos as the best ideas came to prevail, and commonalities across all disciplines recognized.
@Steve Bolger boy were they wrong.
1
@Steve Bolger
A sword cuts both ways. There are two sides to every coin. Sure I'm well aware of the whole philosophy because that's the same philosophy that has existed since the beginning of time to justify education and cooperation.
That comment classically illustrates what I call the flat-earther syndrome. And it's not that they believe the earth is flat. Someone believes the earth is flat because, within the scope of their intellectual and reasoning capacity, that is what they "see" so that is what it is to them. Which, unfortunately, is a classic human challenge. The inability to truly see and understand from different perspectives.
Some people can only see their version of life, which is good to them, and fail to understand that life comes with the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Pinker is wrong, it's very much about blood-and-soil. The issue of race is at the forefront of public debate now. Political polarization is caused by the demographic racial shift.
@Eugene: Tribes resort to genocide after depleting some critical resource by competitively procreating more people to control it. It is why people have made war since the first habitat was stripped of prey and forage.
I am not a doctrinaire liberal nor a registered Democrat. I am an Independent. My disagreements with many liberal positions are likely to evoke knee jerk unthinking labels such as homophobic, sexist, etc. In past elections I have been more likely to vote against a candidate than for. My current choice for president would have been Michael Bloomberg who unfortunately withdrew. However, I do think that the best repurposing of all Trump voters would be to process their organic compounds through a fertilizer plant to allow for at least some redeeming value to their otherwise miserable and deluded live.
6
It’s fun when the comments inadvertently make the point of the piece itself!
9
What, no comment from Mr. Gingrish who opened this Pandora's box?
2
Why are we more polarized than ever before? One reason and one reason only. Faux News and it's ilk.
6
As a nation let’s face it “violence “ is in our DNA
We brought plague and pox on purpose to native Americans.
We tortured and imprisoned and indentured millions in America and abroad in the Caribbean .
Whites were indentured along with browns like Spaniards and Italians.
Darkest Africans were enslaved.
We experimented on the imprisoned. And we experimented on our military. Think syphilis infections and atomic bomb blasts.
We took theories generated by research of tortured holocaust victims and folded it into medical research.
We started wars of aggression against our neighbors.
We support dictatorships
We are violent.
Hosing down protestors
Pepper spraying young people at occupy Wall Street
We are currently back into our Civil War out here in America.
Most citizens are oblivious.
Yes violence will ensue if trump The autocratic dictator white supremist
loses
And yes
There will be street violence if he wins too.
He wants chaos and violence
And in a Civil War it is what happens.
We have no leadership.
Lots of EGO though.
Journalism is Gonzo gone.
It’s a popularity ratings contest.
We could start with this exercise
1. Name your local Mayor / Town Manager and Town Council
2. How do you register to vote
3. What are local property taxes used for 4. Who is your congress persons.
5. What does Fourth Estate refer too?
6. Name your state secretary ?
Please add some commenters.
We are a bunch of “ know nothing” biased lazy ,struggling and angry citizens.
BAD
3
@nurseJacki Jacki, I loved your poem! Nice.
Here's something I composed at Xmas:
O Tanningbed O Tanningbed
How much you want for
Leaving us?
Though orange is your favored shade
Your needles fall like yellow rain.
And as your verbs get thick and slow
You make your dough on other brows.
O Tanningbed O Tanningbed,
Thy candles turn to Ze-ro.
1
This is not a "both sides do it" argument.
The large majority of one side wants a living wage, affordable housing and education and health care for all. They believe in science, that global warming is the true national emergency, and much of what the other side does favors the very rich at the expense of the rest of us. They know these things can be redressed if we focus our budget, taxes and legislative priorities toward these goals.
The large majority of the other side believe what they are told, even when their leaders are demonstrably lying to them. They believe POC and immigrants are keeping them from a living wage, affordable housing and education and health care for all, because their leaders told them so. They also believe that Jesus will return in their lifetime, taking them to heaven, and damning everyone else to hell. In fact, much of their political views are shaped around punishing those on the other side.
I want to give the other side the same things we're fighting for (wages, housing, education, health care, etc.), because I believe these are their rights, too.
They want to watch me burn forever because I don't believe the fairy tale they believe.
And I haven't even scratched the surface of the evils of Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, and every GOP member who take advantage of the willfully ignorant people on that side.
This is not a "both sides do it" argument.
11
@Kenny Herbert If you are correct about it not being a both sides do it argument, how do you explain the numbers quoted? Some 20 percent of Democrats believe that the country would be better off if the opposition died? 18.3 percent of Democrats believe that violence would be justified if the GOP wins the next election? (Also note, both numbers are larger than the Republican equivalents)
Historical statistics are not available to prove it, but I doubt that at any time since 1860 would these numbers be as large.
Whatever your or my policy beliefs may be, wishing death or violent revolution over them is not what I consider America to be.
@mikecody I wrotesaid the majority of each side believes what I wrote. I didn't not say either side was unanimous. Btw, 18% is less than one out of five. Coincidentally, about four out of five Republicans believe the End Times are coming in some form (Rapture, Jesus' return, other). Mirror opposites.
The partisanship is HEAVILY tilted to one side, and the media should not try to make it a "both sides" report.
@Kenny Herbert True, but a belief in the end times is, in my opinion, less troubling to the continuance of American democracy than a belief that violent revolution is the correct response to your guy losing an election.
These numbers are staggering! THIS is how Hitler rose to power. He wasn't just one man brainwashing a nation; He capitalized on people's fear of the "other" and portrayed Jews, as well other groups, as a threat to mankind. His rhetoric was to engage people to protect "our own". I've grown up thinking it could never happen here in America. What is horrifying is not only can it happen here, it IS happening and now.
1
EVIL?? evil doesn't begin to describe the republican party of donald trump
cut backs in all social services and an increase in military spending denial of climate science protection of bigotry in the name of "religious" belief tax policy adjusted to funnel even more wealth to the top 10% of our population
i'm 71 and as far as i can recall the republican party has come down on the wrong side of just about every cultural moment in my lifetime the democrats have screwed up often enough too but weighing evil versus good the scale comes down heavily on the republican side
NIXON REAGAN BUSH TRUMP
4
While I am certainly a liberal democrat, I have been distressed by how folks on the "other side" like to tell me how I think about many issues. There is a lot of gray in this world and if only I could shout out that my views are more nuanced then is often expected of a Boulder Liberal.
2
First: this project doesn't measure how violent people are, or even whether they approve of violence. It measures whether they tell an interviewer they would approve of violence, which is a different thing. Actual violence could be measured directly by looking at the sales of weapons, or at police records, or maybe at online trolling, which can reach the level of verbal violence. Similarly with wanting people dead: this is probably mostly rhetorical.
Second: the researchers go to some effort to avoid considering the meaning of any political position. They are careful to only look at group affiliations, as if your views on how migrants should be treated is something on the logical order of what team's tee-shirts you chose to wear. They are obviously able to find a lot of group loyalty, indicating evolutionary biology at work: but they avoid looking at the areas where political positions have practical significance beyond names on tee-shirts. What would be interesting would be a study of how real policy preferences interact with tee-shirt level group loyalties. What is going on with the many Republicans who personally like Social Security? That is where it gets interesting and complicated.
1
Why does the same representative have to represent me on so many different issues? Split congress into 12 bodies, each of which deals with a group of issues. I would have an environmental rep, a defense rep, etc.
Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist at N.Y.U.:
“I am expecting that America’s political dysfunction and anger will worsen, and will continue to worsen even after Donald Trump leaves the White House.”
One of the things we have learned is that when people hear a social scientific theory, they tend to conform their behavior to it. Thus it is possible to interpret Haidt’s statement not as anything scientific but rather as the magical incantation of a sorcerer that will cause the America’s dysfunction to worsen.
1
Republicans have taken to wearing shirts that say "I would rather be Russian than be a Democrat".
I would rather be an American than be a Republican.
8
When you create an environment where identically situated people are convinced the other is the enemy —that’s what is happening now after all—it diverts attention from the larceny affecting the similarly situated victims of it. Former slave owners knew this when they convinced white sharecroppers that identically situated black slaves were the enemy. This story is as old as Cain and Abel.
2
More of this!! So important!
1
It still amazes me who many people are still ignorant enough to buy this sorry act . . . oh. well . . .
I have three thoughts:
(1)i don't mean to sound snide or supercilious--
--but my! The heavy Latinate prose you waded through to bring us these thoughts, Mr. Edsall.
Bad news, too. All of it--bad news.
(2) I blame the GOP. Pure and simple.
Remember Mr. Newt Gingrich who--as The Economist put it not long ago--"turned politics into war." Or, as Mr. Wehner put it a while back, "made every fight a fight with knives." Taught his fellow Republicans to insult--revile--vilify people on the other side. Supplied them (out of the goodness of his heart) with a long list of opprobrious epithets--in case their own small stock of words ran out.
(3) The culture wars. Here I am worried--frightened--at a loss.
Especially with the abortion question.
You could not exaggerate the number of men and women--lots and lots of women, never doubt it!--who view abortion as murder. ANY abortion carried out for ANY reason. They speak of it with horror and repugnance. When they think of "Democrats" or "liberals", they speak of them as "child-murderers."
How the left and the right will EVER come together on this question I don't know. I would compare it to the slavery question in (say) 1860. Or the war in Vietnam in 1970. It falls like a meat cleaver over the American electorate.
And goes far (I think) to explain the extraordinary bitterness that inflames the political landscape nowadays.
How can we douse those flames? Come together as a country again?
You tell me.
6
@Susan Fitzwater.
Perhaps by electing a leader who doesn't use divisiveness as his main tool to retain power.
1
I am an old guy who relies on Social Security and Medicare for a decent retirement. Trump made a campaign promise not to cut those programs. That turned out to be just another in a long series of lies. I don't believe in violence but consider Trump to be evil as well as stupid.
6
Great piece. The danger of being smart is that you are even more capable of deceiving yourself. Anyone who doubts this should read Middlemarch, where a devout and clever 18-year-old heroine persuades herself to accept a marriage proposal from a devout but stupid and elderly suitor. Thank god he dies before our heroine can utterly ruin her life trying to please him.
For Dems like me, there may not be any such happy ending. As Mr. Edsall’s respondents say here, there’s no obvious reason why someone might be against legal abortion but in favor of the Green New Deal; against liberal immigration laws but for Black Lives Matter. But call-out culture and in-grouping has turned mere political inclinations into rock-ribbed holy doctrine. Everyone on Twitter has a little hanging judge inside them and will brook no dissent. Four more years.
1
A lot of what is said here is true, but there are still a lot of things going on that are not equivalent. For instance, Speaker Pelosi says that she is not for impeachment proceedings to go forward because it is too divisive. Sarah Huckabee Sanders comments on this by saying, “I’m glad she sees what the rest of us see and that is there is NO reason, NO cause, for impeachment.” (emphasis mine)
Both of these statements are the result of clear partisan views, but only one of them actually hits the “smell” test for being rotten. The Speaker is correct that impeachment proceedings would be very divisive and not really effective at this time. Ms. Huckabee Sanders is clearly incorrect to state that the Speaker sees that “there is no reason, no cause, for impeachment.”
Yes, both sides shade the issues some percentage of the time, but one side seems to do it far more than the other. A high percentage of one side believes Obama is a Muslim, not born in this country, a socialist, etc. The other sees the current president as a con man (Trump University), tax fraudster (Cohen’s testimony and NYT’s own reporting), liar (thousands of times since becoming president), etc.
The research shows that we need to raise the profile of evidence based reasoning on both sides of the conservative-liberal divide, but I am not sure I see a true equalivance between the two sides.
Hummm, I wonder how independents fare in the same research...
1
While there's truth in these observations, the 'equivalency' is sets up is both false and misleading. It's talking about emotions and bias confirming, which are features of all political movements.
Meanwhile, how many Trump zealots w/aliases mailed death threats to either moderate Republicans or Democrats in the past 2 years? By contrast, how many Dems did the same to people they didn't like? I think you'd find the 'equivalency' this article suggests dissolves at that point. Secondly, which of the 2 sets of partisans wanted to pardon nutcases like d'Sousa, and is tweeting conspiracies out to 55 million, and suggesting the other side is running pedo rings out of a pizzeria? Yeah, I thought so. Which of the 2 is a cult?
2
Newt Gingrich brought negative partinsanship to Washington full blast and it hasn't recovered since. It just came progressively worse with Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Mark Meadows and their ilk. Their crown jewel is Trump and his cabal of opportunists. Almost 100 percent of Republicans signed the Grover Norquist Tax Protection Pledge despite being in the best interest of their low income constituents. All because of the threat the Party would decline funding or support come election time. Gingrich wasn't any different than the two Steves Bannon and Miller or Trump, face time in the news even negative was good. They generate hatred, provoke it. I don't see that behavior from Democrats or Independents.
2
This is more muddy the water journalism. I'm no democrat but when I hear Trump and his party calling Mexican immigrants rapists and neo-Nazi marchers descent young men; when I talk to Muslim Canadians who refuse to enter the United States out of fear; when I listen to my black Detroit neighbors who will refuse to visit an "open carry" state, I have no doubt which political party incites violence and hate as an active part of its public platform.
1
Dangerous little bald monkeys we are. Here is a thought experiment. Name all the people you can who hold opposing views on abortion and guns. That is, pro life and anti gun or pro choice and pro guns. Ready? Go.
1
An actual mob went to Tucker Carlson's house last year and tried to beat down the door while his wife and child were inside.
This is a fact.
A deranged man sent pipe bombs (that didn't function) to top democrats and media members. This is also a fact.
What is lost here is that mob violence is much more effective at silencing debate and opposition than anything else. The police may outgun a mob, but they will always be a fraction of the size of the mob.
It is also true that, whether accurate or not, mainstream media and top Democrats in congress continually say that "republican policies will kill people".
When we talk about the power of privilege what we must understand is that the people you see on TV will motivate partisans to engage in deeply "unsocial behavior".
Every time you say that republicans are evil or that climate change will kill people, you are tacitly building the mental, social (and at some point legal) baseline for political violence.
1
@Arturo
But what if those things are true.
The solution is that we should not say them ?
1
George Orwell’s daily exercise on Two Minutes of Hate has turned into almost nonstop fomenting of hatred of the other by some Fox pundits, hate radio hosts, Internet hate groups, white nationalist groups, and on and on. Meanwhile, the Republican Party turns a blind eye to the damage their election tactics of racism and hatred is doing to the country. Every Trump rally is a paean of hatred for people who are not in Trump’s base. How far will this have to go before we have civil conflict? We’ve already seen that many Republicans do not condemn election fraud (think North Carolina) so long as their party wins. In his testimony to Congress, Michael Cohen voiced the opinion that if Trump loses in 2020 he will refuse to leave office, calling the election a fraud. We think our institutions will hold, but will they?
The socialist democrats have continually shown their hatefulness since day #1 when their candidate lost. Antifa, attacking Maga hat people, the Coventry Boys, etc. have been seen by Americans every day. Along with slanted hate from social media, the press, their made up Russian collusion story. Protests for nonsense, etc. all of this does not help their party, future candidates, etc. Their hostility is Un American.
Only one "side" literally had Nazis marching through a U.S. city. I think it's ok to hate that segment of their base. Actually more than ok. It's pretty much necessary.
2
I view both parties with a jaundiced eye(two actually), and hold both responsible for the sad state of affairs for people of color. Those on the right(right?)are at least honest enough so that we know where we truly stand. Those on the left are as phoney as a twelve dollar bill, and have proven they cannot be trusted. Due to people of color being socially engineered into abject poverty and illiteracy for centuries now, I see both parties as hate groups
The false equivalence is profound here. Do I think people who want me dead are evil? Yes I do. Would I resort to violence to protect my family? With a very heavy heart, yes. But there’s only one party dehumanizing other people as a matter of policy, and it’s not the Dems.
2
Having arrived as the enslaved black African property of white Judeo-Christian Europeans their hate has never left a physically identifiable historically maligned American minority.
African Americans were "freed" into decades of separate and unequal living while black in America. Color aka race was and still is used to arrest, beat, burn, hang, imprison, shoot and rape black people with immunity and impunity. Along with discrimination against blacks in every phase of civil secular life is the norm.
And between condescending paternalistic liberal white pity and condescending paternalistic conservative white contempt the reality is that neither philosophy accepts the individual accountable diverse humanity of black African Americans.
Hate has tried to leave African Americans behind. Enslavement and separate and unequal were self- evident exemplars of the fact that white people didn't really believe that blacks were innately inferior aka lazy, ignorant, immoral and violent.
Otherwise they would not have found it necessary to cheat in order to " win". Both slavery and Jim Crow were cheating.
1
This is the pattern you see when one party really is evil.
(What, did you imagine that it's impossible for that ever to happen? Never heard of the Nazi Party? Evil parties are real. It was only a matter of time before we got one here in the US of A. Refusing to see the evil is not going to help.)
Trump is aggressively stoking the hate machine. People are responding in kind. It is very ugly. The ugly american. We deserve all the ridicule the world can heap on us for not just allowing the guy to take office but for allowing his hate to define his nationalist agenda. Putin is using Trump to destroy the country. Fox and Trump’s deliberately ignorant base are really helping.
Want to see an excellent example of partisan hatred and believing the other side is intrinsically evil? Read the New York Times.
GOP: Mostly, not evil. But, mostly Dumb.
See: Trump, et al.
This is another moral equivalency piece. Would we have accepted it in Germany in 1939? Pro-Hitler and anti-Hitler haters driven by similar psychologies?
1
Compromise is attainable in a number of ways. A ruling class can completely subjugate the masses; there can be a great revolution in which all resources, economic and social, may be equally divisible, likely at a discount of fewer resources for distribution; and, perhaps in the extreme, the left and the right may come to realize that not working hard toward social and economic solutions to problems is itself a problem. Sooner or later compromise will happen, hopefully sometime before doomsday.
1
"The democratic dilemma may not be whether low information citizens can learn what they need to know, but whether high information citizens can set aside their partisan predispositions."
I knew it. At least, I was primed to know it. Thank you.
"Honest reasoning about issues is inconsistent with group loyalty. To be a good group member, I should adhere to a position because it is the group’s position, while believing that the facts justify it."
That I can say I knew. Instead of adhering to an opinion group, let each one of us help make a habitat for honest reasoning. It's a species of thought that's vital to our survival.
2
I’m a Democrat that lives in Alabama so many of the people I interact with are Republicans. My Dad used to be a registered Republican he’s not anymore but his mother and sister are. I completely agree that partisanship is dangerous. If our representatives in Congress can’t have civil conversations about legislation and policy and how we move forward as a country and just retreat to their respective sides nothing will get done. We have seen this way of doing things for at least the last 4 years and nothing has really gotten done. Why is compromise so undesirable? If people would actually talk in a civil manner instead of talking about how the other side’s opinion or point of view is evil we might be able to find common ground and make some change.
1
I want the lady in the photo to have what she wants--a nation without "psycho Dems." I want an option to separate. I've never thought the outcome of the Civil War was all that great for us as a nation. There are certain issues many of us are not flexible on, like white supremacy. Rep. Steve King seems to think it's a legitimate topic for discussion while I believe and science confirms that we're all members of the same human race. There's no space for compromise.
Same with climate change. While there's a lot to discuss concerning what to do about it or how urgent it is or even if it's 100 percent human-caused, there's absolutely no question that it's happening. Yet, those on the right refuse even to acknowledge it. That's unacceptable. Too much is at stake.
Civilization survives only with a large "agree to disagree" middle ground where both sides have legitimacy. We're past that on too many issues both social and economic.
When the EU was negotiated, there was apparently an "opt-out" option built into the contract--we're watching it in action now. Yes, it should be painful, but if a significant portion of people in a state think the opposition is psycho, then they should just go and leave the rest of us in peace.
We have separate states each with their own constitutions, so let's rewrite our national constitution to let states separate from the union. That would be less bloody than what you tell me we are headed toward now.
3
Sorry, I don't buy the nuance of this article. False equivalencies ring through it. Edsall has produced dozens of essays in his columns showing how the Republicans have moved far over to the right to enable their forces to maintain power. This may have lead to the tribalism that we see on both sides, but certainly, the liberals did not start this. Society moves on in spite of the reactionary forces and vested interests that would like to stop it. I judge things by the issues that are involved. Perhaps the people on the right are not evil, but certainly ignorance, greed, and victimization lead to it.
3
@Barry Lane
Liberals did not start this ? Oh yes they did.
They elected a black guy, and next they'll be trying to elect someone who wants things to be good for people who are clearly not like those on the other side.
And they think there won't be trouble ?
Unfortunately, our current bipartisan extremism was sealed into the bargain when we ended up with two parties, who are supposed to duke it out for dominance.
The old Alpha Male Dominance Posturing is still the norm in most but our local governments, where people often recognize each other as neighbors dealing with the same limitations and resources in their area. When Competition and Combat are still the overriding principle, what outcomes can you expect?
How about we lay the party affiliation aside for awhile and start talking to each other about ISSUES, such as the high price of healthcare, and what to do about it? Or transportation issues, which includes fuel prices. I'm pretty sure everyone in America has experienced some sort of weather related issues recently, so can we talk about that and see if there's any change from the past?
Etc.
2
If people chose one side then go with mental gymnastics to stick with that side, then the key question should be: what makes some people identify with one side vs. the other?
It's clear in the article that once that identity choice is made the partisanship kicks in, but I think it's more important to know what values, formative experiences, or other factors make people identify with one side or the other. Often times you have people raised in the same family, same income and educational level, etc. have opposing partisan views. Why?
More mealy-mouthed, namby-pamby, both-sides-do-it, pox-on-both-their-houses poppycock.
Save your fury for Frank Luntz and Newt Gingrich.
They're the men who taught a whole generation of Republicans never to stop at "My position is right and yours is wrong," nor even "I'm right and you're wrong" - but to charge right on to "I'm right and you're immoral/evil/moronic/subhuman."
That's the source. Glad I could help you out there, Tommy.
5
Sociology has a methodology that serves it well, but leaves something out: a qualitative evaluation. In 2017, I conversed with a number of Trump followers among family and at work. I found it increasingly difficult to have useful debates and discussions about policy because of what I call the "unreality factor" on the part of Trump supporters. I felt strongly that they had gone down a road from which they could never return. And, in the same way that Trump himself, continues to double-down on untenable positions that are clearly failing him. There's also the religious dimension to political ideology on the Right. I don't see them as people who can "come back." In contrast, when I discuss politics and policy with non-Trump supporters (independents, former Republicans, Democrats) I can sometimes see a glimmer of the *new* two-parties that may emerge when this is all over with. When people express hate toward Trump supporters, I say: "A few of them will become violent. A few will do the hard work of where they went wrong. The great majority will just edit their memories. And that's a good pragmatic role. Forget about them. All we have to do is simply outnumber them, but not focus on them, but the really difficult issues of a global economy and how we should and can live differently from the past, when it comes to climate change and all that."
2
Much writing in the New York Times concludes with: The Republicans Are The Problem.
In contrast, Mr. Edsall's writing valuably reminds us that no one, not even progressives, is immune from the pitfalls of basic human nature.
2
But Republicans ARE the problem. We are correct to fear them because they are really dangerous.
1
A claim of bias in a look at partisanship is quite interesting and telling. Please expound on your Times bias theory and possibly provide some source that aren’t biased against the GOP. Pretty sure that will be telling too.
For those of US who try to live our lives according to the teaching of Jesus, Trump is evil. Jesus taught that the devil is a liar and,the father of lies. (John 8:44)
Now, we can think about what or who the devil is--deified evil, the adversary, the accuser. If God is Divine Love then the devil is the opposite, and the opposite of love is not hate but fear.
Trump lies. He lies to promote fear of the Other. The GOP steals and then lies to justify the theft. I am thinking about the shameful injustice done to Merrick Garland, President Obama, the millions of Americans who made him a majority president, and to the US Constitution. (Kavanaugh lied to get his seat on the Supreme Court. The House Judiciary Committee ought to investigate this.)
There is right and wrong, and we have to say what we think that is. The discourse ought to lead to consensus about what we as a society will accept as right behavior.
People who do not agree with US are not animals. They ought not to disappear from the earth. Their ideas and the candidates who support them ought to be defeated at the polls.
3
But they're not a "Grand Old Party," either. So why do you keep calling them one?
Yes, go high. Of course be respectful. But just call them by their name.
In the future, Trump's presidency will just be a couple of paragraphs in a history book. All this ranting and raving is a meaningless waste of time. It changes nothing, it accomplishes nothing. Doesn't anyone realize how ridiculous it is to devote so much time to something you have absolutely no control over? So what if someone thinks Trump is a genius, and someone else thinks he's a criminal? What difference does it make? Whether you support him or not, Isn't life complicated enough without being fixated on Donald Trump?
A good anthropological test would be:
1) Walk into a rally for Trump wearing a Bernie or Liz Warren button
2) Walk into a Bernie or Liz Warren rally wearing a MAGA hat (or bonus points for any Hollywood type wearing one to the next Oscars awards)
And measure which side spews the most hate. I already know which side I'll put my money on. And it ain't the MAGA hatters.
1
I think the stat showing the Democrats are more about inclined to violence over Republicans reflects Democrat’s anger towards Trump. If Trump and Pence’s policies, without the rhetoric, were pushed by Romney or even Pence alone, I don’t think the anger quotient would be so high. Trump’s lies, hypocrisy and hatefulness have so angered people that they want revenge. Trump has brought out the worst in us. We are of course responsible for our own reactions and it’s worth it to see how we have surrendered our humanity in response to this despicable man.
3
"Men’s testosterone rises or falls on election night..."
What about women? Those meek souls do what exactly? Just sit back and take it? NO!
Judging from the tears on the election night, and then the take-to-the-Street (and later the House) Women's March, something biological happens to women too.
But I guess no one did any "research" on how women's hormone level's rise and fall in competition.
In truth, both genders react emotionally in competition, but to choose to only highlight what "testosterone" does, is, in fact, part of the hate.
Just to keep these comments “fair and balanced”, I see most of the political violence in this country is on the left. Antifa, BLM have engaged in destructive rioting. The left shouts downs and roughs up conservative speakers on campus. And the labels of racist, misogyny are applied to anyone you disagrees with any part of the left’s agenda. Wear a MAGA hat in NYC and you get thrown out of bars. In fact expressing any support for our president incites hysteria in the left. I will look further into the granularity of this referenced study, but I suspect it will point to a left much more willing to resort to violence and an intimidation then the right. And as Edsall points out, the left justifies it behavior on their perception that they are morally superior. Dangerous ground.
1
"Lethal partisanship is taking us into dangerous territory"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree. I disagree because I think a new democracy is coming.
Consider Leonard Cohen's prophetic "Democracy" song (1992).
He sang: "Democracy is coming...to the USA", 27 years, ago.
Now, in 2019, I think our political polarization is forcing change.
Trump, with his craziness, is waking us up to the need for change.
Something has to give! We, the American people need to bend.
Leonard Cohen's "Democracy" offers some suggestions, while
another Cohen, Michael Cohen, courageously, leads the way.
I ask you to listen to the words of Leonard Cohen's "Democracy".
(Ironically, Leonard Cohen passed away, a day after Trump won.)
Would Tom Edsall care to comment on the song?
"Democracy is coming...to the USA".
---------------------------------------------
1
Simply put:
The hardcore Republican MAGA people are united in one cause. Their overriding motivation is to takedown, dismantle, get rid of everything that liberals have tried to achieve. They do this because they view the liberals as the haves and they are the have nots. Since they have no hope, no faith, that conditions will ever improve for them, they are supporting a politician, Donald Trump, who is actively destroying liberalism.
This motivation forms an umbrella for their myriads dislikes and prejudices. It is like a grand unification theory of antagonism and hate.
Specifically:
They don't hate black people, they hate liberal policies, which liberals cherish, that help black people.
They don't hate Mexicans. They hate liberals for immigration policies that help Mexicans because liberals want to help.
They don't hate the environment. They hate liberal policies that protect the environment because liberals love them.
They don't want the rich to not pay taxes. They hate liberals who want to tax the rich.
They hate single payer because liberals want single payer.
The MAGA people take all of these position solely because they oppose anything that the haves stand for, even though these policies will help them.
This is the source of the division. That's why conservatives want to get rid of liberals and liberals want to fight back and get rid of conservatives. It doesn't get more tribal than this. Survive by eliminating the other side.
3
I don’t believe it’s a have vs. have not situation I think it is more limbic than that. I, a liberal, react to any issue when raised the opposite of my sister, who is very conservative. My reaction and hers’s occur before we even know each political parties’ position. It’s grounded in our morality I think. She is very Old Testament. I am exclusively New Testament. Fire and brimstone vs Sermon on the Mount.
We went from blaming the “ignorant” voter to blaming the “educated” voter. Was bound to happen with everything else happening.
Here comes the wave of..."false equivalence! MY party really IS the better one..."
How many times and ways do I have to say this! - my gut feeling of evil comes from Trump himself - I’ve dealt with and lived under Republican majorities before, but, never! never! has such an immoral, ignorant, belligerent, spoiled brat of a man held the reins of this country that I love. HE is the “evil” in the equation and I think we will be “delivered from evil” when decent people go to the polls to rectify the horrible mistake they made in 2016. Please god.
1
It is my personal opinion that the Electoral College chose an individual to be president who was completely and totally unqualified. That person was a member of the Republican Party. The initials G.O.P. once stood for Grand Old Party. Now, with the annointment of that person as head of the party those initials have fallen to mean
Gang Of Perpetrators.
Do moral judgements lead to tribalistic behavior or do tribal instincts lead to moralistic judgements arising to justify hostility? In a slightly different universe the partisan attitudes on abortion might be reversed: conservatives, who are supposed to be libertarian and opposed to government interference, could take the position that women should have choice; while liberals, who usually argue for compassion, could extend humanity to fetuses and argue for their right to life.
In group matters, and many involving individual interactions, behavior is determined by instinct and reason is used to justify the tribal or selfish attitude. Some formal morality has been determined this way, and in practice the actions of religious groups are strongly based on tribalism, whatever the formal morality. The same is true of some ostensibly economic ideological groups.
Of course in the modern world the worst things happen when leaders deliberately exploit tribal instincts. Some may have fairly systematic knowledge of how to do this, such as Nazi and Stalinist propagandists, and some may just be following their own instincts.
looks like some form of tribalism is hard baked into us
As a high cognitive voter, I couldn’t make it through this piece, so,full of academic jargon my eyes glazed over, my head fell to the desk and I concussed.
Studies like "Lethal Mass Partisanship" are themselves a symptom--maybe even a partial cause--of the problem.
If you ask people a lot of incendiary questions about the opposing side, you stoke their negativity and aggression.
"Is the other side downright evil?" Well, yes, blast them! "Should they be exterminated from the face of the earth?" [Channeling Swift] Why yes, exterminate the brutes! [Conrad]
The more you encourage people to think in these terms, the more they will. Isolating a mind and offering it a sociologist's menu of' extreme questions is not unlike sitting them in front of a computer screen crowded with ranting ideologues.
Extreme questions beget extreme answers. As is often the case with the social sciences, I fear we're not learning much here.
The Republican Party IS evil. This is not just my opinion. Let us look at the facts:
1. Extreme gerrymandering designed to strip voting power from Democrats no matter how many votes they muster.
2. Biased voter registration policies designed to prohibit ‘people of color ‘, non-white, from voting because the Republican Party has lost the demographic race.
3. Unhampered wealth redistribution from the poor to the wealthy.
4. Trashing of the environment through relaxed enforcement of water, air, and land pollution policy.
5. No restrictions on guns or gun sales under the guise of the 2nd amendment. (Let those under economic stress kill and eliminate their peers and themselves).
6. Elected and continue to support a Grifter for President who has sexually harassed women, cheated Contractors and working class Americans, cheated on taxes, cheated the Draft, lied repeatedly, and who is unabashedly racist.
7. Tried and succeeded to tarnish and mar an election for Governor in North Carolina through voter manipulation and outright fraud.
8. Obstruction of Justice by not following up on the crimes of the President.
9. I could go on and on.
The Republican Party is completely immoral, evil, and corrupt to the core. And so are those who continue to support the actions of the Party.
6
Heh Edsall.
Read what the actual elected republicans say.
You might start with the campaign Trump saying if he lost the election he would decide whether or not to accept the loss because he and other republicans were saying they could only lose if they were cheated. Somehow you missed that? And he won in part by lying about hush money campaign finance laundered payoff to a lorn star, and being helped by Russian state spies who hate America. Yeah. Really.
And where was the violence over that one off Gore v Bush? Oh yes. Republicans had a little vote recount riot in Florida. A vote recount effort involving those who know select federal judges and selected federal judge including Supreme Court justices. Democrats said, oh well. Scalia snottily said get over it. No violence.
But go on playing both sides do it but the democrats are worse.
Me not a democrat. But I think liars are the beasts.
2
I hate both parties. Where do i fit in?
I believe the researchers are right: This isn't going to get better, only worse.
Increasingly, I find myself disengaging from the outrage machine. I disconnected cable TV and started streaming exclusively, so I don't see cable "news". I haven't logged on to my Facebook account in nearly two years and I've come to view political bloggers as rage dealers anger junkies can rely on for a fix.
Nothing partisan about it- there are criminals and their accomplices and then there's Democrats.
Blind scientists! Can they not see that one side is made up of arsonists and the other of firefighters?
1
And what is driving this madness? Pure greed and narcissistic altruism. Both are manifest in the mind blowing addiction to immigration as a panacea for political, demographic, and economic ills.
How sad to be called a psycho by another American because of politics......
I really feel sad for our future generations. What kind of country are we giving them?
Civil war, anyone? as H. Rap Brown said "violence is as American as cherry pie". Don't expect a war of armies, but that of large armed gangs who will give no quarter and will get none. Hostage taking, torture and rape will be the order of the day. It won't end until people on both sides get tired of killing each other.
Eisenhower was 100% correct to entitle his WWII memoir Crusade in Europe. Just because "the" Crusades are now seen as politically incorrect, and filled with evils, as they were, doesn't mean that all moral crusades against evil are ipso facto bad. Should abolitionists have had a more "nuanced" view of slavery? Was the moralism and crusading fervor of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" a bad thing because it lacked ambiguity and an attempt to understand slavery from the perspective of SC slave owners? It's unfortunate that a minority of the American people elected a genuinely evil man to the Presidency in 2016, but they most certainly did. With the gigantic mound of irrefutable evidence of Trump's unexampled moral flaws in the White House staring us all in the face, like it or not, what are decent people to do except fight this swine with every fiber of their being? How can the fight against Trump not be experienced as a crusade for the soul of America, just as the Civil War was, and just as the fight against Hitler's evil was a crusade to save the soul of the West?
1
I think it’s time for Red America and Blue America to go their separate ways. We no longer have anything in common.
How productive. The next statement will be "I think it's time light blue America and dark blue America go their separate ways".
2
The toxicity of the political process has reached a point where are in a new civil war that like the first one is about white male privilege against the fear of the demographics favoring black and brown skin citizens and immigrants. The Republican Party has been veering toward the outright protectors of white hegemony ever since Richard Nixon's "Southern strategy." With Donald Trump all pretense has been cast aside with his blatant appeals to white racists with his immigration policies, his America First agenda, his support of neo-Nazis who matched in Charlottesville, his attacks on black professional football players, and his recent attacks on Rep. Ihlan Omar, Brown-skinned Muslim, and the Democrats as anti-Semitic. And it is no surprise that Trump country encompasses much of the Old Confederacy. The frightening situation the nation confronts is that we do not have an Abraham Lincoln in The White House, but a Jefferson Davis complete with a party of Constitutional nullifiers. Whether Lincoln's hope that "government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish" will hold is the very crisis this virulent political polarization represents.
The obvious solution is to bring back the fairness doctrine so that lie filled propaganda organs like Fox “News” can’t keep polluting the airwaves with hateful rhetoric.
When McConnell refused Garland, that made made a big change. I think dems said "ok, it's gonna be like that huh"? Repubs KEPT suprising me with their visciousness.
Personally, I am more into fractionating complexifiers.
Certainly want nothing to do with the tribal flavor of rising and falling testosterone.
And yet who is committing actual acts of violence in this country based on identity politics? I think more anti-gay and anti-black, anti-female and anti-Jewish acts of violence occur than anti-right attacks, but review the facts for yourself.
The GOP and its supporters have promoted hate since the 1970s. Mainly hate towards gay people (I am gay). Not just dislike but intense hate. They want me entirely left behind, no protection from discrimination (which is the case in many red states thanks to the far right fanatics on the Supreme Court). The GOP supporters talk about how evil I am, how disgusting I am, how loving my boyfriend or husband is the same as marrying a farm animal, how I am from the devil. This goes on daily.
So when I view the GOP and its supporters, what am I to think? "Good people on both sides"? Hey, let's sit down and discuss this? Discuss what? Yes, the Hitler analogy is very overused but if you think so, what else should I use?
Perhaps there are fanatics on the Democratic/progressive side but that's nothing, nothing nothing compared to the bullhorn hatred blaring out of the GOP. Nearly all the political violence (apart from Islamic extremists) in recent years is right-wing, like the Proud Boys and other fascist type groups.
So stop with the "good people on both sides". That is not the case.
Compulsion to nullify "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" characterizes some of the most dishonest people in the US.
If in fact we have to build bridges between disciplines, we have to support those disciplines, which in Cosmides' article were science- based. One side today supports science; the other denigrates it and defunds it, even as they reap its benefits. Should engineering be kept separate from physics? Should people of one culture be kept separate from people of another? Have we forgotten "hybrid vigor"?
1
@Mike S. Faith simply does not work. A mother praying for hours for a safe flight does not avert software glitches in airplanes loaded with billions of lines of source code.
It has come down to Faith v. Reason.
What an excellent piece … and so amusing that many of these comments so artfully demonstrate the author's point. "Lethal partisanship is taking us into dangerous territory" is very certainly about both sides, folks. If you can't see that, you're part of the problem.
3
It does feel a bit like history before the Civil War. Like that time It is not like both sides are equal. It is true that Millennials in particular have made political correctness a moral issue. That said greater equality and less abuse are good things. What do the MAGA people want? Less immigrants? Benefits for themselves and not for the "wrong" people. Other than fearing Trump people and their guns We need not get rid of them but they are every much as big a problem as Trump himself.
There's ample evidence they're both evil and working against us. Both parties supported a war that has cost 500,000 lives, not to mention the waste of $6 Trillian dollars. That defines the word "evil".
What I find most interesting in this op-ed is that the more Democrats than Republicans agreed with statements about killing the opposition, wanting the opposition to die, and supporting violence to change the outcome of elections with which they disagreed. For a long time growing up, I had always thought that the Democrats, essentially liberals were peaceful and loving people, that it was the Republicans who were callous, malicious, and warmongering. Turns out I was wrong. But I knew that before Mr. Edsall pointed out these facts in this op-ed. The Democrats are truly a hateful, vindictive, resentful lot. I am glad that I no longer align with their politics nor anything for which they stand. If I find out someone is a Democrat, I keep my distance from them, I am suspect of their motives, but I pray for them, I pray that they will come to their senses as did I. That's not to say that I am entirely on board with the Republican agenda. But I do support the President. I support Trump. I want America to be first, not last as it was under the previous administration. MAGA! Thank you.
1
So, there are bad people with extreme views on both sides.
We've heard variations of this before; it's what happens when you pour more fuel on a smoldering fire.
Trumpism reminds me of Macbeth--Shakespeare used a legendary Scottish King as an example of how evil inexorably begets more evil, in his day Tudor/Elizabethan suspicions of rival Stuarts in Scotland.
Serial chaos, non-conformity, stereotypical villainization of "the other,"--socialists, immigrants, whatever....
Trained experts in analyzing human behavior have great value in alleviating suffering, but like most other people, psychiatrists and psychologists can get caught up in assuming an applicability of their expertise far beyond what it deserves. That assumption is a form of arrogance.
If American voters are confronted by a President who lies about nearly everything, who appears to be corrupt in his greed and his thirst for power and who demonstrates an attraction to cruelty, violence and revenge, are we tribal and destructive by considering that our fellow Americans who support this President are morally wrong?
The divisive partisanship which hobbles our nation is a byproduct of Donald Trump’s misconduct and the complicity of those Republican politicians who condone and enable Mr. Trump.
Our refusal to look the other way is not a pathology, regardless of what the experts quoted by Thomas B. Edsall suggest.
2
was the survey conducted on the internet? following what website?
frankly, people make/take ludiocrous positions on the internet. to take seriously sentiments of violence is the same as believing everything on twitter: its just internet nonesense.
Missing a few salient points here. Evil is a religious construct. Republicans are greedy and that's why I think they are acting selfishly against everyone. The Party that both now and historically does violence is the Republican side. The Murrah Federal building all the way to the gunman planning to kill Democratic elected officials and a lot in between. My atheist point of view as to Republicans is more nuanced but the same result. When the "militias" actually contemplate acting on behalf of Trump in an attempt to keep him in power when he gets his orange jump suit do I as a lefty atheist need to be well armed to deal with that eventuality? I don't want Republicans to die, they need re education and PTSD treatment from exposure to toxic Fox News propaganda. Fox News can be daily shown to be lying, as is the president, to their audience and back to Trump and back and forth or in other words a pretty good echo chamber. This writer defines the 2 sides and tries to imply that something evil is going on but to an atheist there is no evil without ringing the bells of religion which is dog whistle stuff for Trumps Evangelical base. This whole exercise is a deeply flawed attempt to conflate religion with truth. I would not have answered such stupid vapid questions in the first place. Republicans have turned their collective backs on science in the pursuit of a buck. Does anyone really need to know more than that?
1
What a load of Both-sides-ism, look this article describes the conservative position of win at all costs politics. They stole a SCOTUS seat (Merrick Garland), and are packing the federal courts with right wing crackpots (some of whom have little to no experience as lawyers, much less judges). They believe that life begins at conception, that climate change is a hoax, and want to cut taxes to nothing. They maintain their white identity tribal belief that cutting social programs will hurt minorities more than poor white people.
On the contrary progressives want Medicare-for-all, Green New Deal, and public K-PhD Education policies that will benefit everyone in the country. The moderate Democrats either don’t want anything to change, or want change so incrementally slow that it’s pointless. I agree that I don’t see any of this getting better anytime soon.
2
The research seems to assume that both "sides" share blame equally, but how about our elected officials? To put it bluntly, most seem incompetent, birthed by our skewed campaign finance system. Which corporation or out of town group backed your Congressman or Senator? "Foreign" money from everywhere is influencing every aspect of who we are (allowed to be) voting for. How many times have people said, "Gee I can't stand any of these candidates"?
Perhaps the numbers in these studies reflect the lousy candidates we can elect via a flawed election system. Perhaps if we first fix the campaign finance and election systems, we'll get better elected officials who will do their job, part of which is ending divisiveness.
Is that too much to ask? Isn't that what our *leaders* are supposed to do?
2
People's political views aren't as extreme as the media portray them. The internet requires to be filled with news and opinion, there isn't that much valuable content, simulated news is manufactured to fill the void. What causes this? The extremely low cost of dissemination + high demand for a new medium. If costs were higher or demand lower only higher value material would be published; in the current environment almost no selection takes place. In the 19th century newspapers were the latest thing, people couldn't get enough of them, big cities supported 20 or 30 newspapers. How did they compete? Partisan extremism--sound familiar? The newspaper news delivery platform is now old, cities support one or two newspapers. That, in some form or other, is the future of the internet--costs may not go up, but demand will eventually fall, editorial selection will raise the level of content.
An extremely insightful and important column, making the point rarely seen in the media or humanities departments that our biology, the product of a billion years of evolution, underlies all our behavior.
I have one quibble with Prof. Cosmides: the human races are the same as what biologists call subspecies in other organisms: morphologically (anatomically) distinct populations of a species that occur in different geographic localities but interbreed at their joint boundaries, and produce offspring intermediate in their distinguishing characteristics. Thus, Rocky Mountain mule deer and Pacific coast black tail deer are the same species and interbreed where they meet, but are quite different in size and coloration.
Not only does that definition clearly apply to the major human races, depending upon whether the biologist is a ‘lumper’ or ‘splitter’, it can also be readily applied to subpopulations within the major human races. In Africa, for instance, it is easy to spot the differences between a Masai, Kikuyu, Luo, Dinka, or scores of other tribal groupings. Or in Europe between a Dutchman and a Greek. They are physically distinctive, associated with particular parts of the continent, but can and do interbreed readily.
There is no judgement or moral baggage in acknowledging geographic differences. If the subspecies (race) concept is uncontroversial when applied to species of plants and animals, why should it not apply equally to humans?
What if we can't put Humpty back together again? It seems like a frightening proposition, that the country is coming apart at the seams. But what if it's true?
In 1860 we faced that kind of divide and half the country decide that they no longer wanted to the "United" States of America. So rather than go down a similar road what if we gave people a choice?
What if some of the red states said 'enough, we want out' so that we can pursue our version of border security, family values, government and religion etc.
What would that actually look like? Maybe a sobering examination of that possibility would produce more dialogue across the divide, because it wouldn't be a pretty picture.
But maybe it's exactly the picture we have to be forced to look at. We can't go on with political parties that act like being elected means being chosen to rule rather than govern.
With the power we have now centralized in the federal government there is a very real danger that this could happen.
On the other hand, with this sobering picture in mind we might recover our civic imagination and discover that putting Humpty back together again requires building a new puzzle, not forcing his parts into the old one.
Maybe it is time for a new constitutional convention to create not a 'more perfect union' but simply a better one than we have, more suited to the challenges of the 21st century rather than the 19th.
1
False equivalence does not equal objectivity. Nor does reflection always result in nuance. There’s much to be admired in this column, as with all of Mr. Edsall’s columns, but I find it lacking in Edsall’s judgment—less utilizing academic study, as he often does, than hiding behind it, as do the academics.
1
The interesting thing is that there is one form of group identity that satisfies the need for an "in-group" versus "out-group" configuration, but doesn't lead to major civil conflict--national identity. But America is a paradoxical country in that respect: It is an immensely powerful nation, but has a very weak, precarious form of national identity.
Ask someone from Mexico or Argentina what it means to be Mexican or Argentinian, and they will generally answer with a description of concrete things like cuisine, modes of dress and conversation, patterns of social interaction, etc., that--they think--define their country. But ask an American the same question, and you are likely to get an list of abstractions--belief in "democracy" and the "rule of law," valuation of "entrepreneurship," faith in "meritocracy" and the "free market," etc. These abstractions supply a very weak glue to hold together a country of more than 300 million, particularly since their falsity has become more and more manifest. So, deprived of a meaningful, affirmative way to understand themselves in relation to the world, Americans turn on one another, seeing the members of the opposing political party as a dangerous "other" that cannot be reasoned with--only resisted.
1
It is not coincidental that the Great Divide began in Congress and much like a disease, it spread to the nation. Congress realized that if everyone towed the party line, then they could obstruct any and all legislation from the other party. It didn't matter whether it was the majority or the minority power. It didn't matter if members agreed or not with the legislation at hand. Just the other day a new member of Congress chastised other new members for not following the party line. We did not vote for party line lemmings, yet that is what we have and it creates gridlock. Mutual Assured Destruction of a political nature. Citizens are willing to compromise on issues, parties are not. Ironically, about 70%of the same folks interviewed in all these studies are self-described as moderates.
So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but it appears that one survey sampled 1,000 people on-line, and the other used a probability-based panel of 1,215 people.
I'm neither a scientist nor a statistician, but it seems like a low number of people. Also, how do we know that people didn't take the survey more than once? If they were asked to share a link to the survey and invite others to take it, wouldn't they share it with people who express the same views?
So, I agree that we are disastrously polarized right now. But suggesting that millions of people believe the US would be better off if an entire demographic just died??? That seems a little extreme.
"Do you ever think: we’d be better off as a country if large numbers of [Opposing party] in the public today just died?"
So has the thought ever crossed my mind in a moment of frustration? Sure. I also used to fantasize about my ex-husband dying. But that's a moment of irrationality brought on by extreme frustration, hopelessness, anger, whatever. This in no way means that I would actually want either of those things to happen.
"Who would you rather see bad things happen to: [Opposing party] politicians, or [Own party] politicians who vote against the party on a key issue? [Answer: outparty]"
What's the meaning of "bad things?" Being voted out of office or being murdered? I would think clarification would be important here.
These are just a few issues that came to mind.
1
The lack of a greater enemy is a core driver to this situation of hyper-partisanship, but it also due to a noncompetitive political system that leaves voters with only 2 choices to express themselves politically. Republicans started us down this road to identity politics in the 1960s with the Southern strategy, using "law and order" as coding for race. And as Democrats dropped questioning the basics of our capitalist oligarchy (although they are trying to make amends for that now in their own clumsy way), the only things left to argue about are social (ie, moral) issues, thus triggering these evolved patterns of group loyalty and reasoning discussed in the column. I think the solution is break up the political duopoly so that voters have more voices and therefore more choices.
3
@Tonar Two choices are enough if the choices are good.
1
I always vote for the Democrat these days but that wasn't always the case. We used to benefit from dialogue, from the examples of Ted Kennedy , John McCain and others in Congress who worked for consensus. Issues are complicated enough that some of us really want to listen to opposing arguments (the word argument originally being a positive discourse). We need personal stories to be shared. We need the Better Angels of Our Nature approach. And these researchers need to examine the effective work being done to bring us together, which if successful could minimize the mindsets exemplified in this article.
I must vote for Democrats now--because most GOPs in Congress embrace lies about climate change and support the slow destruction of the Earth. But I know as well that they love their families and that they hope their descendants will be safe from harm.
4
@Beverly: The Republican Party bowdlerizes the English language to cheat its way out of equitable negotiation.
1
@Steve Bolger
I agree. The language itself needs to be addressed--words Progressive, Left and Right, Conservative, Liberal, Democratic and Republican (which are in their original context something we might all agree on).
Of particular note is the word Life, now a brand name referencing just one form of life or potential life. That's ludricrous and should be called out whenever it's used unless all lives, all species are taken into account.
Democrats miss the opportunity to challenge the language and to engage over the true meanings of these words. As for "psycho," it and other pejoratives must be condemned but even then Democrats could demand to know specific reasons for using them and remind opponents how much we all lose when pejoratives determine our choices.
Part of the partisanship issue is that people won't discuss issues. Politics are basically not up for discussion unless everyone in the room is a fellow traveler. I'm basically a moderate but I've been turned to defending the right because of the nonstop misrepresentations of facts on partisan issues in the mainstream media. This predated Trump. Much of my political thinking has been informed by recognizing that the Times and other media outlets cherry pick facts or distort them to push left wing partisan narratives. And my liberal friends (of which I have many) read it and repeat it uncritically. And the vehemence I've seen closeup from my liberal friends and acquaintances is unbelievable. I've been personally attacked on one or more occasions for either supporting a Republican or taking a point of view that is different from the liberal line.
Now I'm sure there are nasty Republicans out there as well. But the image of the MAGA hat wearing neanderthal that leftists believe is clearly wrong. Both sides are nasty as these studies show. Unless of course you dismiss science you disagree with.
We've clearly moved beyond treating politics as a sport where we compete hard but shake hands and hug at the end of the game. Some of these issues that we now disagree with each other about are considered life and death. Abortion, climate change, immigration, etc., are considered by many to be matters so critical that opposing views can't be tolerated.
1
So, Speaker Pelosi is correct. President T is not worth it.
Very interesting topic.
I wish the surveys had included the source of political news in its questioning. I strongly believe that media increases the strength of political polarization and also determines the policy response to problems as well as the priority of issues.
1
Boomers grew up beneath the threat of nuclear devastation and confronted their own mortality in Vietnam. The Greatest Generation came of age on the battlefields of Europe and in the Pacific. Their parents survived the Spanish Flu and trench warfare.
Our species is literally bred for conflict. It defines who we are, writes our history and determines our future.
Our only redeeming quality is that we understand this, discuss it and make individual attempts to overcome our "nature," as Tony Soprano described our desire to self-destruct.
Considering what we're capable of, I'm impressed that we've lasted this long... and that such a relatively small percentage of us harbor homicidal thoughts about the opposition.
1
@Kris Aaron You omit the obvious corollary: generations since the boomers have faced no hardship, physical or moral. Unless they are among the few who have joined the military or undertake dangerous sports, they are the most coddled, least challenged generations that humanity has ever seen, and are the also the least tolerant of opinions even slightly out of line with their own. Given the hard left wing politics of so many youngsters, it is not surprising that the left is more likely than the right to approve of killing the other side.
This is a fantastic column, and much more needs to be done to blunt tribalism in our society. All bad things arise from it- racism, nationalism, war, political violence. Critical thinking and anti-tribalism should be taught in schools from a young age. If we don’t figure a way to short circuit this process, civil unrest is inevitable.
7
One of the most lucid and informative pieces ever to appear in the paper—kudos to Edsall for doing his homework on the research.
If we can see how our minds work just clearly enough to refuse the half-conscious process of demonizing and dehumanizing the "enemy," whether it is a rival nuclear power, someone of another "race" (an illusory concept from the perspective of biology as Edsall points out), or the opposite political party, we can get through the worst of polarization without mass violence.
We need projects, whether local or global, that bring the polarized together in the name of common goals like climate change mitigation. These shared tasks, where everyone is needed for success, will help bridge the dangerous gaps between "us" and "them." Someone once wrote what sounds like an undergraduate bromide, but it is deeply true, more true now than ever: "The earth is a sphere, and a sphere has only one side. We are all on the same side."
Locally, personally, the workout for each of us is contained in these words from the activist Kern Beare: “Courage embraces the pain and, in a paradox lived out by moral heroes past and present, transmutes it into fearless love, deep wisdom and true power. Our actions are now drawn from a deep well of compassion, leaving the perpetrators of pain without an outward adversary. They’re forced to face only themselves — the one proven alchemy for redemption and change.”
5
A good detailed analysis of partisan identity and tribalism here, but I think it leaves out one originating factor that a few commenters have hinted at, which is the "zero sum game" theory, also known as the "one world is not enough for all of us" idea.
In a world that is perceived to be bountiful, or at least possessing enough resources for all who are available to develop them, partisanship and tribalism, while never disappearing, recedes. Maslow's hierarchy of needs seems accurate--if one can procure the basics of survival relatively easily, time can be spent on higher order pursuits. There simply isn't as much reason to fight over "yours" vs. "mine" when it is perceived that there is plenty for most everyone.
Of course, this perception has only happened fleetingly in too few places over the course of human history. But it is arguable that our modern planet, with seven billion plus people and a noticeable resource shortage, has had a much increased intensity of scarcity perception, exacerbated by the hyper speed of communications, and in the attempt to keep access to resources it's convenient to exclude competitors by denigrating them as unworthy of these.
One wonders if we'd be as partisan in a world of one billion people, rather than seven, and in a world with international norms and standards of labor compensation and resource allocation.
5
Why does it take up so much space to say so little? I've been listening to the right wing drumbeat for years. It reminded me, and still reminds me, of Bolero, a low beat steadily increasing in
volume to a roar with the whole orchestra yelling its head off. Why should we be surprised at the outcome - Donald Trump? It's been a long time in the making. And it's been planned, haphazardly perhaps, but planned nevertheless. We're in serious trouble.
10
Overall, this brilliant essay reminds of this:
"All lies and jest,
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest.... "
Truer words were never written.
8
"Honest reasoning about issues is inconsistent with group loyalty. To be a good group member, I should adhere to a position because it is the group’s position, while believing that the facts justify it."
Many intellectuals, philosophers and prominent academics throughout history, certainly capable of and often engaging in honest reasoning, were deeply committed ideologically to their ideological group. It all depends on who is defining "honest" reasoning.
However, it used to be in the US that there was a loyalty to a group above party, i.e. country. While there might be lip service to that today, country is often seen through a party lens. There is nothing in the US today to pull all parties together towards country.
A solution that might ameliorate the situation somewhat would be a required period of volunteering after high school in which people from different groups and communities would come together and get to know one another in some form of service. This might be serving in the military ("band of brothers" and all that), but not only. It could be in hospitals and other endeavors.
5
I have a much simpler theory. There is a classic struggle between good and evil that has played out through recorded history, with evil often triumphant. The good have a majority, but it is not large, and it seems to have less testosterone. Trump, though nominally a republican, is as pure a representation of everything repugnant as we've ever had in the Presidency; and even Dick Cheney, who may have done more harm and had a more consistently evil agenda, was outwardly more "mainstream". If you look at the agenda's of the 2 major parties, they break down to "I've got mine, and will fight to keep it" and "we have more than enough;let's spread the wealth". Or "we need to control choices we don't like" and "we need to allow people leeway to be different". How can these stark contrasts be anything BUT wildly polarizing?
414
@dave - "I've got mine, and will fight to keep it" and "we have more than enough; let's spread the wealth". - well put
46
It takes many sane people working together to neutralize one psychopath.
64
@dave: The "I've got mine" vs "spread the wealth" difference maps pretty directly onto our partisan divide, but the "control" vs "leeway" difference is lots more complicated. I think both parties claim to be the party of freedom: one is talking about guns and the other is talking about sex and gender. (and there is much more to it than that of course.)
22
Universal healthcare should not be a political issue. Neither should income inequality, climate change, protecting the environment, affordable education, sensible gun control, among many others. Why one side (the GOP) is making these into political issues speaks volumes and makes psychobabble such as presented herein unnecessary.
9
It is unfortunate. A real attempt to understand others, a real effort to cultivate empathy, the leap of imagination nececcary to place onessef in another's shoes--these seem the best ways to deal with these thugs.
1
Thank you Facebook and 24 hour reporting. Yesterday, while playing at an oldtimers ( 70 to 80) poker lunch, a few made some comments that were beyond outrageous, including how good things would be if there had been no civil war and slaves had not been freed. Granted,they know that saying such things will get under my skin since in their eyes I am a bleeding heart liberal though my uber liberal
Democratic friends view me as a conservative.
How did they get this way? Hypnotized by Fox News! Plus they all went to school in a large city in Texas when the schools were officially segregated by race and unofficially segregated by income.
Result, they never got to know any black people or poor people when they were young. My only hope is that their kids are not like them.
4
Mr. Tooby's "honest reasoning" is the way out of this.
How's about both 'tribes' compete to see who can most manifest this principle.
2
I'm undoubtedly one of the most un-groupish loners out there and yet I'm also in the group with the greatest anger and animosity against the minority party that continues to cheat, harm and entrench their tyranny so go figure. It's not about the internet and media or partisan identity. It's about one evil group of powerful and entrenched interests and their low-information voters destroying our democracy to retain their reckless power at the expense of everyone and everything else including the climate, children's lives and average people's health and longevity. In other words, yes, the obvious truth is that republicans really ARE evil and if you know that you're going to be okay with a lot of them dropping off like a good riddance. And I'm a loner with practically no skin in the game so, again, go figure.
6
In Red states we have whole generations of young people that have grown up seeing and hearing nothing but Fox News 24/7. Fox "News" is nothing but conservative lies and propaganda. The fact that the author and his surveys here ignore and poo-poo the influence of a biased media in creating our cultural divide is laughable. Young people can believe government doesn't function because Fox News tells them it doesn't, and because Republicans like Mitch McConnell actively ensure that it does not work. When one party wins the majority of the vote in four out of five presidential cycles, yet only gets a president from their party twice, you have the seeds of distrust of the system and anger.
I used to try and understand and converse with conservatives. I even voted to increase my own taxes so they could be better off. No more. Now I just hate them and all they fail to stand for. Add that to your statistics.
5
@wcdevins No mention of the left leaning media and the loss of objectivity in reporting? The left today is as tribal and intolerant as the right ever was, and the respectable media every bit as biased as Fox and Limbaugh.
The elephants in the room are social media and non research pundit journalism (Fox, msnbc, drudge, huff post). Facebook and twitter have created echo chambers reinforcing fears stoked by completely bias news media. We’ve got to get a grip on these parts of our culture and reign in the talking heads on both sides.
118
The talking heads you want to rein in are all on the right. Every. Last. One.
Did someone name this National Bothsides Day?
16
@Lorem Ipsum
My thoughts exactly! What a bunch of baloney. The Republicans spend the last 30 years telling us up is down and down is up and are asked for no proof. They play dirty (stealing a supreme court seat, saying that Obama was not born in the country) and when we FINALLY get upset that we have a boot heal on our necks- the media is shocked at how angry we seem. Oppressed people who have been gerrymandered out of our votes will continue to get angrier until we are able to exercise our rights again.
By the way, I think it has been right wing extremists who have been making the majority of the bomb threats, running out to the pizza parlors, etc. This is not a problem of both sides!
55
@Lorem Ipsum MSNBC and Huffpost are hardly right-wing.
11
I can't say enough good things about the University of Pennsylvania, which remains as relevant as ever. The institution deserves credit for nurturing the academics in this piece.
Anyone interested in further reading on this topic should check out Jonathan Haidt, formerly of U Penn, now at NYU.
A Penn alumnus *is* the United States at the moment. Just ask him. Doesn't get much more relevant than that. MAGA on, Quakers!
@Joel Sanders
You correctly identified the real issue, the corrupt partisanship of Mitch McConnell. His stated goal of " making Barack Obama a one term President ", meant that he mendaciously put self, and party interest, above political comity, and the welfare of the nation. His refusing to allow hearings on Merritt Garland simply underlines his toxic, partisan banality, and his chinless visage is the perfect metaphor for his lack of integrity.
8
The main reason the polls like this are laughable, there are only a very few kinds of people willing to participate in a poll like this. This was not something like exit polling or a survey you need to fill out to get your pay check. I think the people taking this were laughing as much as I was then reading this. Who loves Trump or HRC enough to kill the supporters of the other party. Give me a break. We have had this 2 party system for generations. People think that one term in office for Trump and Americans will be killing in the streets.
1
The great divide seems to be coming down to conflicts between those who think we need to act collectively to save the earth and those who don't. Between collective restraint and collective abandon. This is how the existential threat boils down. Every day now a 9/11.
6
The Constitution gives political parties no role in government, and not all Americans have acquiesced to rule by political party. According to the Pew Research Center, “the share of independents in the public, which long ago surpassed the percentages of either Democrats or Republicans, continues to increase.”
Yet we still arrange seating in Congress by party affiliation and permit political party hacks to devise parliamentary rules—such as the Senate’s 60-Vote Rule and the House’s “Hastert Rule”—that magnify the power of political parties and contradict the Constitution. We treat majority and minority leaders as if they hold constitutionally established positions. We continue to subscribe to once great newspapers and watch news networks that have become partisan blog sites.
George Washington warned us against political parties in his farewell address. He said, “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.”
3
I fear this sad state of affairs will persist until we find ourselves in an actual war with existential threat, with an external enemy we can all agree is the true evil. I pray I am wrong.
2
It started, in my view, with CNN's "Crossfire", and culminated in Fox News. For a chillingly detailed account of the impact of Fox on the GOP in general and this administration in particular Jane Mayer's "The Making of the Fox News White House" in a recent New Yorker is a must read. And, no, there is no equivalent on the left, not even close. Just as in Israel, we are heading toward either a "two state solution", or a complete jettisoning of democracy.
5
I question these kind of findings, due to the respondents' anonymity.
Society is cursed by online anonymity, which has opened up a social sewer. Go YouTube or a number of media websites and read the comments—they're railroaded by bigoted, bellicose know-nothings. Offline incivility has, in some part, been fed by digital lickspittle.
Many of the survey questions were purposefully phrased to provoke knee-jerk responses from largely anonymous respondents.
The resulting data is mushy, to say the least.
The Republican Party supports institutional racism and opposes basic democratic principles like "one person, one vote."
If Tom Edsall doesn't think those are evil positions, shame on him.
7
Wow, that's a lot of words to describe a political atmosphere that has been created by one side. One side.
That side is the extremist right wing that began with the Tea Party takeover fueled essentially by one man: Rush Limbaugh.
Other talk show hosts followed of course, but Rush set the stage for falsehoods and hate. Rush made Fox possible.
At the core of this side is intolerance for:
1. Religious views that are different
2. Womens reproductive freedoms
3. People of color - any non whites
4. Universal compassion - health care, etc.
5. Anyone else who might need help
6. "Foreigners"
7. Science
The self righteous selfish tribal impulses that had been held in check by modern leaders has been enabled, cultivated, and encouraged for political gain and power by the leaders of the party often funded by the Oligarchs who have benefited the most.
Bigotry and hate in its many forms have been the strings of the puppeteer rich who manipulate those tribal impulses.
Let us be honest about the source of this "lethal partisanship". Anyone else notice that the range of discussion about democracy and social welfare in the Democratic party is wide? That's healthy.
How many wings of the GOP exist today? Moderation is quivering in a corner, too afraid to speak. Republicans have become the party of totalitarian intolerance. That's something to hate.
9
@Bob Bruce Anderson
Thank you for a clear history of the militant Right. As a former history teacher, I often wonder how textbooks will view our particular slice of Time. Will the Era of Trumpism be seen as America's Re-birth of Glory? Or will this epoch contain the swan songs of liberty and justice? The history books will be written by the victors, of course, and I am struggling to remain hopeful that our nation will survive these dark days.
I do know that I will want it said of me (and those like me) that we did all we could to return our nation to its roots. Many of our Founding Fathers did not desire political parties. Now that we have them, we must live with them, but I think I'm not alone in believing the Republican Party will not endure much past the Trump presidency. Trump himself has poisoned the well.
Voting and activism are our only hopes. The Democratic Party must win the presidential election in 2020 if American values of equality and freedom for all are to prevail.
The article starts by talking about "Republicans and Democrats" but then links to a page that captures "leanings" rather than party membership. Which is it?
If it is 42% of registered party members believe others are "evil" that's 42% of 77M, or only 32M people.
Perhaps this is what Pelosi was really scared of when she said Trump wasn't worth impeaching.
3
Morality does not come from war and conflict. It comes from the emotion of nurturing love that is hard wired into many species. What these researchers see is crowd behavior. The promotion of fear and hate are instruments of crowd arousal and focus. These instruments are utilized by Trump and right wing propagandists to whip up and direct their crowd's anger. Their strategy turns from the morality of nurturing love by fomenting hatred of outsiders, competition and the fear of losing familiar customs and habits. The progressive response to this fascism is a moral response -- a reaction against crowd hatred and conflict replacing reason and planning. It is also a reaction against local customs and ideologies (not based on Kantian universal values) that allow no moral growth, promote racism and xenophobia, promote competition over cooperation and threaten to destroy the living planet.
The researchers seem to think that all beliefs are morally equivalent. This is cynical and is the same view that allows Trump to continuously lie. Lies are a fascist political strategy. Progressives want a better world and society. They want economic equality and a protected planet. They do not want a continuation of the same hurtful system that is ruled by a few rich and powerful males.
3
A flawed piece based upon a flawed study that accomplishes zero to improve our understanding of our current state of affairs. A state which has been brewing for a long, long time.
I will go back to my alarm when an 8 year old nephew parroted his parents at a family picnic along the lines of:
“We like Bush because he is not intellectual, doesn’t use big words and is a C student...like us
Liberals aren’t real Americans and don’t deserve the right to vote.”
Little did we realize that the above were relatively quaint affectionate and endearing statements compared to what morphed into the Republican and Conservative discourse today.
Watch Fox. A steady diet of hate, fear, lies and conspiracy theories.
Good old days.
6
This would all be a nonpartisan rebuke of partisanship if it were not about morality, or Trump were not President.
We have never had a president so clearly lacking in personal morals -- no other president has been exposed on videotape bragging about groping women -- and even more telling is that Republicans now support amorality they never would have a generation ago -- voting him into office after that video became public.
The issue of "no hate left behind" needs also confront the fact that no major party candidate has campaigned as Trump has, consciously promoting anger and narrowing his appeal to only his intensely-loyal "base." The durability and fervor of Trump's base is remarkable, but also something that is clearly undemocratic.
3
What were the questions on the survey? How were they framed and what were the options to answer? There's something seriously wrong with those numbers; literally. The reality doesn't bear out data that shows far more Democrats are filled with dismissive hate and bigotry than Republicans. Not when we have the major right-wing network referring to Democrats as "Dims" in its closed caption subtitles, right-wing "journalists," pundits and politicians, including the "president," consistently using the truncated "Democrat Party" as a form of insult, and most especially, not when the overwhelming numbers of hate crimes and violence are coming from the right-wing.
There's reality on one side, and now there's a very questionable "survey" to feed more of the overt hatred that comes overwhelmingly from one side that has been relentless in its dirty politics, double standards, moral rot, all the while crying victim.
300
@Gustav Aschenbach
I had a similar reaction.
27
@Gustav Aschenbach Sorry, but commenters and columnists on this very publication regularly spew truly vicious hate speech against Trump, his supporters, and older white people generally. It's the norm now.
22
@me
Really? Got an example or two? This older white people always interested in a bit of the chapter and verse approach to an asserted - and admittedly new - norm.
34
One reason to consider the Republicans as evil is that they definitely engage in outrageous behavior for the explicit purpose of pushing Democratic buttons. It is their explicit political purpose to induce democratic rage and to try to use it. In my book that means they deserve whatever they will get as a consequence.
2
We believe in a strong climate control initiative, in allowing more citizens to carry concealed weapons, in a woman's right to choose, in enforcement of our borders, that the Vietnam War was immoral, in supporting police, in providing a pathway for Dreamers to become citizens, that both Trumpism and Socialism will lead to the destruction of our nation, in a massive government infrastructure bill, in Obamacare, in making the rich pay more taxes, in rights for individuals who identify as LGBT, in seeing "safe spaces" as ridiculous, that BLM is not helpful to Black Americans, etc.
When we write comments in support of the issues above, we frequently get told we are on the "other" side.
Well, what "side" are we on?
I thought we were liberals. I thought liberals were people whose thinking was not a part of identity expression but was based upon data and arguments.
124
@Dan: Your point reinforces the thesis of the article--and so do the highly partisan comments of the self-righteous commenters here. Maybe we are tribalists first and liberals last. Purity has overtaken problem-solving. Hate of the "other"side trumps love of country. Maybe liberals, like conservatives, can't identify their own feelings about the other. Nor can they understand how destructive those feelings are.
9
@Dan I've thought about this paradox regarding intolerant "liberals," and I think what's happened is that as the Left basically won the culture wars, the liberals became the establishment. During the era of traditional values, the liberals championed an attitude of open minds - open to the alternatives of values with which they disagreed. But now that the values the liberals championed have largely become dominant ... why would they want to stay open to abandoning the culture they've helped create? They very often don't.
They've achieved their goal - and we're seeing that tolerance for diverse viewpoints was just a tactic to effect change, not an end goal in and of itself.
7
@Dan
Thank you for that. I have decided to be more open with my liberal friends and, as a result, less accepted. I think there are a lot of critical, independent thinkers in the closet.
10
A lot more understanding of history is needed by these researchers. For instance:
"During this period, Smith said, there were consensual “sources of information” and political parties “that were relatively nonideological” with many members “willing to cross the aisle to cut deals.”
The reason there was this "willingness to cross the aisle to cut deals" in that era is that the fundamental group identity was white, and non-whites were not reached out to in any way.
Removing the substance of history and politics to analyze people in the way these researchers means they are not even analyzing a full picture.
2
Unfortunately white men historically hoarded power and oppressed other groups. Those groups have to work on their own behalf to gain fair, rightful political power. For this reason yes we remain tribal and this will continue as whites attempt to keep power for themselves. I would argue the entire dynamic was put in place by whites and that they are the group responsible for the ongoing and increasingly divisive dynamic. The more power other groups demand and achieve, the more entrenched whites become.
@Alexandra Dolore
What about Berber, Arab, Persian, Turk, Chinese, Japanese, Aztec, Inca, etc.? All white, brown, yellow, black, red, etc. people have oppressed others.
This doesn't surprise me at all. Why? I regularly read the comments in the NYT Op/Ed pages. Clearly educated, informed people here are often characterizing their opponents as barbarians and animals unfit for the category human. There has been a regular pattern of people calling for Democrats to "Get tough" with Republicans. If "Get tough" isn't a coded call for violence, I don't know what is.
3
For starters I don't know any Democrats who believe in the devil, so there is that.
I vote Democratic because the Democrats overall represent my views--not because I'm a Democrat first. It has never occurred to me that we'd be better off if all the Republicans just died--and again, I have never encountered anybody who would suggest such an idiotic thing. To my mind much of the problem is that we as a society are caught in the win/lose paradigm in which sensible approaches to the problems facing us are lost, but change seems unlikely because people are making money while we are rushing into an epic crisis and perhaps oblivion.
2
@Lisa
This Democrat believes very much in the devil. The devil is our new incompetent celebrity politician. A mix of JFK, Reagan, Dubya, Obama, Trump, and now AOC.
Partisanship is not new to America. The hallowed Founding Fathers were as susceptible to it as we are today. Whether it was the Adams-Jefferson division or Andrew Jackson refusing to stand to honor George Washington, political enmity is not new—only the technology is.
What may have taken weeks to arouse the faithful, now takes mere moments. Studies that show the depth of division should not come as a shock. Similar research has enabled politicians to target specific messages to their followers with expectation that the party message is disseminated and popularized.
Marketing discovered the subnations that make up the United States back in the 1970s. Jonathan Robbin and his PRIZM identified some 40 groups. What works for Madison Avenue works for Pennsylvania Avenue.
The prospect of violence is also not new. Have we forgotten the violence of the Civil Rights Movement? Freedom Rides. Bloody Sunday. Sixteenth Street Baptist Church Bombing.
What should be of greater concern is our justice system falling prey to partisanship. What some were able to cling to that the law of the land would protect our civil and political rights against such depredations may not be true today as it was then. How recent political appointees will “interpret” the law will have as great an impact upon our nation as partisan politics.
8
This is all sadly true. Very often I read a well reasoned thoughtful op-ed in the Times that attempts to give a nuanced view of a complex topic. I enjoy the piece even if I disagree with it because it makes me think.
Then I read the most recommended comments and one would think the author was advocating infanticide. We just cannot show any attempt to see or understand “the other side” of a complicated issue anymore. It is right or wrong, good or evil.
I am pretty left of center on most issues and have been my whole life. But I never thought I’d live in a time in this country where honest debate and civil disagreement would be in jeopardy.
And the irony is, the world has never been “safer.” We have virtually eliminated poverty. Rights for so many formerly oppressed peoples and groups have never grown so quickly. Yet everyone is more angry than ever.
134
“Don’t read the comments” is a motto that could save the world.
7
@AA when did we virtually eliminate poverty? I guess I missed that.
20
@X Yours should be the NYT Pick!
2
I never thought in my lifetime that the word “evil” would come tripping off my tongue so easily and often when describing some right wing politicians in this country, but when I see them voting to deprive the poor and vulnerable of life-saving healthcare, supporting the separation of young children from their parents at our Southern borders and seeking to take away women’s reproductive autonomy, as just a few examples of harm, I’m afraid a word like “misguided” really doesn’t express the depth of my revulsion.
14
"There were good people on both sides."
Wrong.
One political party engages in dirty politics and has for at least my entire life, using race, gender and economics to pit people against each other. While I fall short of calling the political party that decries the warming and massive biodiversity die-off 'evil,' I only 'fall short' of doing so. The lies, the leading us into war under false pretenses (weapons of mass destruction in Iraq!), supporting the NRA and petroleum industries while overlooking the destruction they cause is somewhat evil, is it not?
This is not to say that I sit glazed in front of the MSNBC talking heads. I do understand the ease with which the human mind is manipulated, and distracted. But at least they can speak in complete sentences without denigrating other Americans based on identity politics, racism, genderism and xenophobia. We can't, or I can't, say this about Pirro or incel Tucker Carlson on Fox. One wonders.
269
@Regina Valdez The issue was whether a statue of Robert E. Lee should be removed. And yes, there are good people on both sides.
5
@Regina Valdez Your side hates old white people, and says so frequently, but that doesn't count as hate speech, apparently..
11
@wnhoke Take off the tinted glasses! The chants heard round the world of "Jews will not replace us" had nothing to do with Robert E. Lee. That was just the catalyst that brought the haters to Charlottesville. Those were not good people in my definition and that of many others.
51
My son and I have been having many conversations on this very subject. These conversations and this article help me to realize when I an falling into this trap. When you come to conclusions about issues after reading, considering, holding two thoughts in your head, and discussing, it is easy to dismiss contrary views. It is also easy to dismiss those whom you believe came to their views without considering any others.
I used to joke that the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives was brain power. I now see that judging people based on their political views only leads to further polarization. It leads to resentment, wagon circling, and anger.
Liberals need to look in the mirror and realize when you become part of the problem, not the solution. We liberals will never see our goals of social justice, a fair economy, and equality by demonizing those who disagree with us. The election of 2020 will not be won by proving all Trump supporters are neanderthals.
103
People who defy “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” trash plain language as well as the specific constitutional restrictions on what Congress can lawfully do.
5
@mike I don't think all trump supporters are neanderthals, but I do think supporting someone like trump is is morally questionable. The studies mentioned describe the other side - trump supporters for me - as morally neutral. For me, being a Democrat and having thought through my positions and not knee jerk favorable for every liberal position, I do see trump as morally and politically despicable. These studies sound too relativistic for me. Isn't there place for sound and informed judgement without resorting to the premise of tribalism?
26
@mike
To your point, I notice too that we are now so polarized that we now desire to begin describing the other as a completely different species altogether (Neanderthal), not just a different tribe of the same interconnected species, but labeling the other as a subhuman group. "Tribal" is becoming so passé. Not a good trajectory.
3
Sorry Tom, this is not a both-sides issue. This is a Republican issue. And until it is continuously called out as such, it will never change.
9
@Peter
Why will 'calling them out' make any difference? Will your superior wisdom overcome their ignorance and shame them into compliance?
“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”
-Oliver Cromwell
1
Upstate NY is much more conservative than Downstate NY. People living in sparsely populated areas have fewer interactions with others and fewer influences on their opinions. Remember where the terms pagan and heathen came from! A Latin and a Germanic expression of the same feature of rural existence.
When a Scottish clan raided their neighbors’ cattle, or a Pawnee party raided a Sioux village, they had no electronic devices. Tribalism depends on tribes. And this is true even in polyglot cosmopolitan NYC. Look where cops and firemen concentrate and live. See where the Red areas are on the electoral map of NYC. Two men have just been charged in the shooting death of an NYPD cop. He was white, and was shot by cops. But the men charged were unarmed and are black.
A registered Democrat, I see the GOP as enemies of minorities, the poor, the aged, and in general, of the equality of women. The GOP means us harm—who can question that? But I also see that GOP supporters have been trained to think of me as pro-death, anti-personal responsibility, and anti-border security. Oh, and anti-Jewish! Those supporters are deluded, but I can’t help that. And I can’t help Trump’s recent budget proposals that cut the heart out of Medicare. I don’t need academics to tell me the lay of that land. But I do not advocate violence.
9
After reading this dystopian analysis, I have more respect than ever for Nancy Pelosi who, on two highly-charged issues, anti-Semitism and impeachment, has urged everyone to cool their jets. It’s called leadership, which we haven’t seen much of at all recently.
13
@PaulB67
I didn't like her before, she irritated me. But she stopped the twit in the White House, dead in his tracks. She's doing a job reigning in the worst destructive impulses of the neophytes now under her charge. I like her now because I can change my mind.
1
This rings true to me. I am a 50 year old Republican who believes in climate change. As a result I am now seen as a liberal and no longer receive the volume of Republican “hate mail” I used to get. Clearly have been pushed to the side
Our politicians are professionals at driving fear, disgust and hatred. Trump is an absolute master. Using advanced communication tools they have driven the people apart.
This makes the country much weaker, not stronger. Make America Great Again really means drive hatred and discord amongst the people. Republicans pass tax regulation specifically to do real harm to democrats. Hatred grows.
We eventually may need a major foreign war to break the trend. Absent that the war is likely to be right here. Time to buy gun stocks
9
This is an important and frustrating development, but the author makes no attempt to assess how we got to this point. If vicious tribalism is inevitable due to the wiring of human brains, why is it so much worse today than 25 years ago? Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, two veteran commentators on DC politics, one Republican and one Democratic, provided the explanation in their book “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks” just a few years back. Going back to the Gingrich Revolution in 1994, the Republican Party has moved sharply and consistently to the right. As these authors show, the GOP has become a “parliamentary-style” party in a Presidential system, meaning it takes on a single-minded focus on winning at all costs. It has repeatedly shown a willingness to shut down the government when it doesn’t get its way. At the behest of Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform, it has forced GOP politicians to take “The Pledge” never to raise taxes. It has increasingly organized behind a simple agenda of “free markets good, government bad.” This agenda has been generously funded by companies that stand to benefit from regulatory “relief,” such as Koch Industries. At the same time, Democratic ideology has been largely unchanged. It is objectively the case that the GOP has become a radicalized party, and this is the explanation for the partisan divide. We don’t need anthropology and psychology to understand the change—just a little bit of history.
8
This discussion appears based solely on survey research, some of it very extreme, ‘we’d be better off as a country if large numbers of the opposing party in the public today just died’.
Don't not trust these results; they are not validated. Survey research is easy to do, but there are so many cases where they distort reality or people answer capriciously.
1