Political Polarization in the United States: What Divides Us and How We Can Heal Our Political System
By Mikayla Schneiter
Introduction
In recent election cycles, the current political environment in the United States has felt hopelessly polarized. Neighbors find themselves disagreeing not only on policy issues but on whether mainstream news channels can be trusted to tell the truth and whether elections are legitimate. Voters are vulnerable to their own biases as well as biases perpetuated in the media by journalists and by the media infrastructure at large. However, political polarization is a human problem with a human solution. Although the increasing political polarization may seem to have already reached catastrophic levels, individuals have the power to ensure that polarizing and unproductive political rhetoric stops with them and the political divide can be healed by people who care about their communities.
Background
Political polarization poses a problem not only for people who are engaged in government issues. When our political environment is highly polarized, this polarization reaches beyond purely political disagreements. The recent rise in political polarization in the United States has been accompanied by declining trust in formerly respected institutions adjacent to highly political positions (Kavanagh & Rich, pp. 68–70, 2018). This means that not only is the political environment polarized, but other entities, including the media and administrative agencies with ostensibly non-partisan goals, are viewed as untrustworthy.
While politically engaged people are understandably concerned about this polarization, studies have demonstrated that we perceive political polarization as worse than it is and that people who are more politically engaged are more likely to perceive greater polarization (Westfall et al., 2015). While the state of polarization in the United States may feel fresh and urgent with each election cycle, polarization in politics and disagreement on what constitutes truth has been present in United States politics for over a century (Kavanagh & Rich, p. 71, 2018; Jensen et al., 2012). Ideological differences between political parties do exist; however, voters across the ideological spectrum are often closer together on political issues than they perceive (Westfall et al., 2015). This is not to say that political polarization is a non-issue; political polarization is indeed on the rise, due in part to a skewed perception of political polarization (Westfall et al., 2015).
Causes of Political Polarization
Personal Biases
The first step to slowing the rise of polarization and healing the ideological divide in the United States is to understand where polarization comes from. One of the main drivers of polarization is our own biases and perceptions of the political world. Cognitive biases are not new to human society and are not unique to United States politics, but understanding how they work is instrumental to understanding political polarization (Kavanagh & Rich, pp. 81–89, 2018). Experiencing cognitive biases is a natural part of how the human brain processes information. It does not mean you are a moral or intellectual failure; however, in this politically polarized environment, you may wish to develop a better understanding of biases and limit their effect on your political decisions.
One crucial cognitive bias is the “confirmation bias,” which causes people to resist new information that challenges pre-existing beliefs (Kavanagh & Rich, pp. 82–83, 2018). When evaluating information, it’s essential to understand what pre-existing beliefs you hold and whether these beliefs cloud your ability to give this new idea a fair shake. To understand what attitudes you hold, it helps to know where attitudes come from. Attitudes are formed by direct experience, exposure to the social environment, or evaluative conditioning (LoSchiavo, 2018). The attitudes formed through direct experience are the strongest (LoSchiavo, 2018); if you’ve ever accidentally touched a hot oven with your bare hand, you likely have a stronger attitude toward hot ovens than people whose attitudes were formed through the social environment after having only learned about hot ovens from their families and friends. Another way attitudes are formed is through evaluative conditioning; if you are repeatedly shown an advertisement that features a famous actor cooking with a specific company’s oven, you may begin to associate that oven with the actor’s public image, even though that oven is likely not related to acting in any way (LoSchiavo, 2018).
Recognizing cognitive bias is key to processing political information fairly and rationally. One study demonstrated that people could act outside the bounds prescribed by their political views when doing so is in their self-interest; however, the authors of this study also opined that people might avoid voicing disagreement with the mainstream views of their partisan interests out of political solidarity (Wong-Parodi & Fischoff, 2015). Other studies have demonstrated that people tend to resist biased or misleading information when that information harms their political in-group and are more forgiving of biased information when it benefits their political in-group (Effron, 2018; Yair & Sulitzeanu-Kenan, 2018). This provides an interesting point for the politically engaged person to consider: Are you speaking up against biased information even if that undermines a political actor you otherwise support? Are your actions in line with what you believe is going on in the world? Are you open to hearing new information, even if it challenges what you already believe?
Bias in Media
Naturally, the biases that we experience as individuals also occur in the political media. News media is created by people who are as vulnerable to cognitive biases as anyone else. With new developments in communications technology, including television news and the internet, our potential for exposure to news and, in turn, these biases have increased. Where people a century ago may have only received the news in a once-daily newspaper, technology enabling us to access a constant and virtually endless stream of radio, television, and social media content has created a “24-hour news cycle” where media outlets are working to share engaging news stories at all times (Case Western Reserve University, 2010). In a 24-hour news cycle, media outlets release content even when nothing of consequence has happened in the world. To fill the time, media outlets sometimes employ commentary and punditry, where news time is used to debate, share opinions on, debate, or explain the significance of a news event. As the lines between opinion and fact are blurred, and media consumers conflate punditry or commentary with news information, our media diets are composed less of helpful facts and more of sensationalized opinions (Kavanagh & Rich, pp. 27–31, 2018; McNair, pp. 71–73, 2011). Further, there are visual storytelling styles that these new technologies have made available to us. In presidential races, news outlets have explained election results with a map of the United States featuring states colored in red or blue. While electoral votes are generally allocated on a “winner-take-all” basis, each state is composed of multiple people who vote for a variety of candidates. One study (Rutchick et al., 2009) demonstrated that this visual cue of red and blue states increases the perception of political polarization.
This problem is compounded on the internet, where anyone can quickly create and share media about politics. Social media algorithms and targeted advertising create echo chambers that reinforce pre-existing views (Cho et al., 2020); every internet user’s experience is personalized to them so that they are only shown content that is chosen for them by algorithms unless they go out of their way to counteract this effect. Further, while “fake news” is an increasingly politicized term, untrue or misleading stories presenting as legitimate news do real harm to our ability to communicate with each other (McGonagle, 2017). Recently, national hyper-partisan news outlets have capitalized on the trust people tend to put into local news outlets by posing as local news sites and misleading consumers about their national partisan identities (Glazer & Hagey, 2020).
How to Heal the Political Divide
Managing Emotions
Understanding where political polarization comes from and committing to do your part to heal the divide is an integral part of the process. As a society, we need to have productive conversations across political divides to better understand what other people believe instead of relying on our own imperfect, polarized perspectives. Talking about personal opinions and politics can often feel stressful or emotional. While this sensation can be distressing, it’s also normal; because our thoughts and opinions come from our brains, and our brains come from our bodies, talking about politics is, in a way, a biological process (LoSchiavo, 2018). One way to manage this stress a little more effectively is to remember that the bodily manifestations of stress, such as an elevated heart rate or shallow breathing, are your body’s way of helping you think faster and engage in that conversation more effectively (TED, 2013).
Something else that might empower you to have more productive conversations about political issues is to engage in mindfulness and empathy. Mindfulness is being fully aware of what’s going on in the present (NIH News in Health, 2012). If you’re feeling overwhelmed by new or upsetting political information, it’s okay to take a deep breath, pause the television, turn off your computer, and do what you must to come back to the present moment. Empathy is another vital skill to rely on while working to build bridges across the ideological spectrum. The people you disagree with are still people who deserve to be treated with respect.
Recognizing Bias
Another critical step to take to heal political polarization is to get in touch with your own biases. Harvard University’s Implicit Association Tests are a great free resource to help you get a clearer picture of the kinds of biases you may hold; the test requires you to quickly sort things in a way that may reveal mental associations you hold regarding certain ideas or people (Project Implicit, 2011). Of course, confronting our own biases in this way can feel a little uncomfortable. Some research (Cohen et al., 2000) has shown that confronting our own bias is a little easier if we make a point to self-affirm who we are outside of our political beliefs. For people who are particularly interested in politics, keeping in mind that we are more than who we vote for.
Intercultural Competencies
Drawing on intercultural competency skills is helpful when having conversations across political divides. Cultural competencies are the skills that help us to recognize our own biases and limitations so that we can connect with other people and ideas without having our judgment clouded by our misunderstandings or limited perspectives. Reflexivity, reflecting on your perspective and beliefs so that you may better understand how they affect your perception of the world, is a key cultural competency skill (Rogers & Hashey, 2017). Cultural sensitivity, the ability to accept differences without negative (or positive) pre-judgments, is another skill that empowers people to more responsibly and respectfully engage in political discourse (Rogers & Hashey, 2017). Practicing reflexivity and sensitivity may help you understand what causes people to draw conclusions and make decisions about politics that are different from the conclusions you’ve drawn and decisions you’ve made.
Media Literacy Skills
Finally, as media consumption habits inform so much of our political lives, it helps to make a point to develop media and news literacy skills. Much like how the increased access to television during the Vietnam War era changed Americans’ perception of military conflict (McNair, pp. 186–189, 2011), the rising influence of social media in political media shapes our perception of polarization division in politics. Keep in mind that people who are comfortable with and frequent users of social media or news media platforms are not necessarily also literate in evaluating and verifying news sources (McDougall, 2019). Be mindful of sharing only truthful information and avoid the trap of forgiving misleading information when it aligns with your political beliefs (Effron, 2018). News events don’t always begin and end in time for journalists to produce one tidy, comprehensive story about them; practice following the news every day and pay attention to the ways that news stories develop over time (Case Western Reserve University, 2010).
Conclusion
As community members, each of us has a role to play in healing political polarization and creating a more just world for all. Keeping in mind that politics is not a spectator sport, but a collective action we take to create a better society for all helps empower us to engage in good faith with ideas and beliefs different from our own. Remaining mindful of our own biases, the biases within the media, and the role each of us plays in political conversation will help create a more productive and unifying political environment.
References
Case Western Reserve University. (2010). Journalism and Media Lecture Series: Howard Schneider Lecture on News Literacy [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv4YgX5udlM
Cho, J., Ahmed, S., Hilbert, M., Liu, B., & Luu, J. (2020). Do Search Algorithms Endanger Democracy? An Experimental Investigation of Algorithm Effects on Political Polarization. Journal Of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 64(2), 150–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2020.1757365
Cohen, G., Aronson, J., & Steele, C. (2000). When Beliefs Yield to Evidence: Reducing Biased Evaluation by Affirming the Self. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1151–1164. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672002611011
Effron, D. (2018). It Could Have Been True: How Counterfactual Thoughts Reduce Condemnation of Falsehoods and Increase Political Polarization. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(5), 729–745. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217746152
Glazer, E., & Hagey, K. (2020). Partisan Sites Posing as Local News Expand Ahead of Election. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/partisan-sites-posing-as-local-news-expand-ahead-of-election-11603077119.
Jensen, J., Kaplan, E., Naidu, S., & Wilse-Samson, L. (2012). Political Polarization and the Dynamics of Political Language: Evidence from 130 Years of Partisan Speech. Brookings Papers On Economic Activity, 2012(1), 1–81. https://doi.org/10.1353/eca.2012.0017
Kavanagh, J., & Rich, M. (2018). Truth Decay: An Initial Exploration of the Diminishing Role of Facts and Analysis in American Public Life. Rand Corporation.
LoSchiavo, M. (2018). How Attitudes are Formed [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxisEC4nF1A.
McDougall, J. (2019). Media Literacy versus Fake News. Medijske Studije, 10(19), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.20901/ms.10.19.2
McGonagle, T. (2017). “Fake news”. Netherlands Quarterly Of Human Rights, 35(4), 203–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0924051917738685
McNair, B. (2011). An introduction to political communication. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
NIH News in Health. (2012). Mindfulness Matters. National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2012/01/mindfulness-matters.
Project Implicit. (2011). About the IAT. Implicit.harvard.edu. Retrieved from https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/iatdetails.html.
Rogers, R., & Hashey, A. (2017). Developing Intercultural Competencies in the 21st Century. Retrieved 17 April 2020, from https://sites.google.com/site/coilinterculturalcompetencies/
Rutchick, A., Smyth, J., & Konrath, S. (2009). Seeing Red (and Blue): Effects of Electoral College Depictions on Political Group Perception. Analyses Of Social Issues And Public Policy, 9(1), 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2009.01183.x
TED. (2013). How to make stress your friend | Kelly McGonigal [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcGyVTAoXEU
Westfall, J., Van Boven, L., Chambers, J., & Judd, C. (2015). Perceiving Political Polarization in the United States. Perspectives On Psychological Science, 10(2), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615569849
Wong-Parodi, G., & Fischhoff, B. (2015). The impacts of political cues and practical information on climate change decisions. Environmental Research Letters, 10(3), 034004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/034004
Yair, O., & Sulitzeanu-Kenan, R. (2018). When do we care about political neutrality? The hypocritical nature of reaction to political bias. PLOS ONE, 13(5), e0196674. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196674
About the Author
Mikayla Schneiter is a graduate of SUNY Empire State College’s BA in Public Affairs program with a concentration in Advocacy. She is also a graduate of SUNY Erie Community College, where she earned a degree in Paralegal Studies. Mikayla worked as a paralegal in the litigation department of a downtown Buffalo law firm which serves and advocates for injured and disabled people. Mikayla held two internships, one at Sustainable Progress and Equality Collective and one at the Rockefeller Institution of Government — Center for Law and Policy Solutions. Her internship and degree work focused on the correlates of psychological sense of school belonging among immigrant, refugee adolescents, and social equality and the sense of belonging within a community.
