Ideological Division is Not a Bad Thing, So Long as We Stay Humble
Reflecting upon his pioneering business ventures, Henry Ford described a simple formula for success: it lies in the ability to get the other person’s point of view and see things from that person’s angle as well as from your own. My Life and Work, an autobiographical epilogue to the most influential age of the Ford Motor Co. sharply suggests that being successful requires compromise, a capacity for considering other’s ideas, and holding your own established convictions. Simple enough. If we all listened to each other we would all be enterprising millionaires; we would all create indelible effects on our nation.
Evidently, the above does not prove to be the case, even less so in a modern atmosphere packed with a great diversity of opinion, but lacking in compromise. So, why does it appear that ideals shown to have been effective in creating success and progress in the past seem to create failure and stagnation today?
The principles underlying the formation of individual creed stem from our identities, from our remarkable modern culture that has changed over a relatively short period of time to produce the social and political divisiveness we see today. In contrast to the popular belief that such change was a product of the 1960s, evidence suggests that it began in the late 1940s and was spearheaded by a culture who had just endured extraordinary shifts during the preceding World War. Modest, self-effacing members of the Greatest Generation changed post-war American culture such that the new norm became narcissistic, self-absorbed baby boomers.
The Self-Complacency Movement
Egomania and overt self-importance was never the intent, rather being a product of a greater movement. Psychologist Carl Rogers hypothesized the need for an environment of genuineness, acceptance, and empathy as fundamental to maximizing human social growth. What became colloquially understood as the “Self Esteem” movement was indeed good-natured in concept and if realized properly would result in a society more facilitating to diverse ideology and positive social interactions. The Self Esteem movement was to manifest Ford’s vision of enterprise, modified for the prosperous atmosphere of post-war America.
Despite the amiable pillars which the Self-Esteem movement thrust forward, genuineness, acceptance, and empathy were inherently lofty principles to expect of a public struggling with the mayhem of the mid-twentieth century. Nevertheless, schools and workplaces boosted morale by discrediting the role of failure: no longer could Jimmy learn to fail because no longer was he taught anything about growth and improvement; he was perfect from birth and no one could ever threaten that. Carl Rogers clearly did not intend a movement meant to promote self-image to become one of perpetual vanity, although clearly, it had.
Psychologist Nathaniel Branden, a leading expert on the intentions of the movement from a modern angle elaborates in The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem on the tender care one had to take in implementing aspects of Rogers’ philosophy. In his work he particularly stresses that “praising and applauding a child for virtually everything he or she does, dismissing the importance of objective accomplishments, handing out gold stars on every possible occasion, and propounding an ‘entitlement’ idea of self-esteem that leaves it divorced from both behavior and character … are harmful rather than helpful notions.” We have overshot the balance point of being naturally talented and requiring failure in order to improve. We now instill not virtues of perseverance in our kids, but rather ones of complacent self-affirmation and the belief that they are special and gifted simply because to say otherwise would destroy their self-esteem.
From the academic perspective, the problem could feasibly be resolved: future generations of kids would need to be taught principles of toughness exhibited by members of the Greatest Generation, just lacking in the pervasive issues which were fought by that generation using their mental fortitude and determination. However, Branden wrote his self-esteem manual in the mid-90s and those children which he described as receiving medals merely for showing up are now fully grown adults. Some even teach the current generation of students, likely with the same mentality with which they were taught, and therefore perpetuating the false interpretation of the Self-Esteem movement Branden warned of.
The Culture of the Big Me
A ‘Culture of the Big Me’, alleged by New York Times columnist David Brooks has surfaced rapidly and burst into the 21st century. Adults who embody this culture now follow their passions, though “glorify the golden figure inside”; they live in a time of unrivaled meritocracy yet artificially boost their merit by promoting only their silver linings. And no more apparent is this culture than in the arena of American politics. The perception of our own self-importance is inextricably linked to the perception of the extent to which other’s opinions are invalid. Lacking an ability to step back and allow for the natural process of compromise to occur, we may hold deep and passionate convictions, though it is nearly impossible to consider other individuals’ perspectives. Our politics today stress acceptance, open-mindedness, and zealous determination, however, increasing efforts to manifest the latter quality seem to have neglected the power of the first two.
There are numerous elements that combine to create political polarization and it is not absurd to say that the mentality associated with education and success is one of them. The Pew Research Center suggests that since 1994, differences in opinion over racial discrimination, immigration, international affairs, and other controversial political issues have more than doubled, elevating from 15% to 36%. If young scholars are always taught that their opinions matter irrespective of the content said opinions hold, they will be much less open to having their perceptions and convictions changed. Strongly held convictions are only useful if they withstand similarly strong opposing ideologies, or perhaps entirely new perspectives on an existing issue. With this in mind, it makes sense that political opinions mingle less with each other in today’s divisive era. The capacity for compromise has been reduced in those people who were never raised in scenarios which challenged their political ideologies.
Moral education is only one of many angles from which the ‘Culture of the Big Me’ adds to our political disunion. Attempting to explain why hypocrisy is present in politics and why politicians tend to pivot on certain issues, University of Maryland professor Lilliana Mason contends the role of “ideologues without issues” — how ideological terms lacking in firmly established policy attitudes can be effectively used to disparage one’s political adversaries. Self-absorption is a personal quality conducive to strong association with others who are similar. If two people are both deeply egocentric and have concurring ideologies, they are even more likely to unite with one another and be even more self-absorbed together. The same logic could be extended to the reasons why politicians tend to pivot on the most controversial social issues. A particular party or part of a party that is strong in a given moment incentivizes politicians to stray away from their own angles on policy, however strongly they are established. Hooked by the more powerful group, they opt to identify on the basis of identity or some other unifying factor that is not a political stance.
Identity Politics and Disunity
So if identity-based associations create bonds between ideologues and unite groups in ways policy positions can’t, doesn’t it show that a ‘Culture of the Big Me’ can be good for national unity? No. Sure, it may enhance the level of commitment one has to their party for a short period of time by making their connection more intricate, more linked to who they are as a human being than their opinions in the superficial world of politics, but even this is not exactly true. Whether who we are as people is based primarily off our ideologies or identities is a matter up for debate, with many valid arguments for both positions. What’s more, a series of papers published recently by the National Bureau of Economic Research conclude that cultural fissures vary more within groups, and not across them. The relationship between where someone lives, their wage, education level, religious piety, and where they stand on particular issues is weak on an individual level — the same level at which the pillars of self-esteem boosting most directly operate.
Despite the findings of the NBER, the expansive rate of divisiveness in our politics is still explained by the fact that Americans now more than ever seem to “glorify the golden figure inside.” If working Americans are more overall self-affirming now than in the past, if they are holistically more self-absorbed than generations before, then intra-party divisions are bound to arise. This would explain the role of current political culture in creating polarization within seemingly unpolarized groups; it would show that when a large number of seemingly united people overestimate their individual importance, they lose unity and begin to develop animosity towards one another. The self-efficacy that causes people to unite with one another can result in unforeseen quarreling within groups that produces a loss of unity and gain of hostility. This mechanism is simply not present between political parties, which are already discordant.
It is indisputable that the rise of the ‘Culture of the Big Me’ proposed by Brooks — a culture of unbounded vanity, pride, self-admiration, and meritocracy — has the potential of creating vast amounts of division between individuals. That, however, does not answer the second central question: is the nation more divided along party lines now than at any other point in history, and if so, does it matter?
Liberals, Conservatives, and Fringe Extremists
The Pew Research Center once again arrives with an impartial, objective study hinting that there is at least some truth to the elevation in our political polarity. The study starts off with a definitive statement: “Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines — and partisan antipathy is deeper and more extensive — than at any point in the last two decades.” So perhaps we aren’t more divided than ever before and have only increased our levels of difference in the past 20 years. Perhaps polarization is cyclical and certain chance events, whether beneficial or tragic, elicit a movement toward national unity or partisan distinction. Whichever it may be, some facts do hold true. Consistently liberal or consistently conservative opinions have increased from 10% to 21% in the last 2 decades — more people now express fringe ideologies with enhanced consistency than in the past. This is unlikely to change on its own, because of political culture and egoism. If people are unwilling and incapable of reaching compromise, self-absorption will only prompt more consistently liberal and consistently conservative trends. Without the introduction of an external event to shake up commonplace political themes, partisan division will positively reinforce itself — it will continue indefinitely.
Pew also contends that the medians for Republicans and Democrats with regards to left versus right ideology have diverged. Ideological overlap has diminished, indicating that both parties are moving further away from one another and resulting in what is typically referred to as ideological separation or, political polarization. The combination of partisan separation and more consistent party affiliation has resulted in a deterioration of common goals for the country. Republicans and Democrats have always disagreed on the how, but have shared common goals on the what. This bound both groups to be interested in the success of the nation. In the past, this has allowed for compromise in the face of ideological disparity. The Pew study suggests however that 27% of Democrats now see the Republican party as a threat to the well being of the United States and a larger 36% of Republicans see the Democrats as an equivalent menace. Therefore, there is evidence that the goals shared by the dominant political bodies of the nation are weakening and the bonds that once guided our discussions on major issues are now thinning.
Our Shattered Future?
The data objectively assert an increase in partisanship over the last two decades, but we should not be worried. At least not about everything. The fact that polarization is only at a 20-year peak means we have endured higher levels in the past, and we’ll most likely be successful in dealing effectively with its continual increase in the future. The major challenge is changing the attitude people have towards it — to reinstall the self-effacement and modesty seen during the Greatest Generation. The deviation of party medians is also a non-issue, so long as both can maintain common goals for the nation that act as ropes preventing accelerations in how fast they are coming apart. The only true worry we should have concerns a decline in these common goals; we must monitor the percentage of people who view the party opposing their own with resentment. Even still, hateful sentiments of opposing political parties are expressed by significantly less than half of all Americans, meaning that while such sentiments are inherently threatening to the well-being of the nation, there is time to effectively and intelligently remedy them. Perhaps it is best to start by taming the ‘Culture of the Big Me.’
Henry Ford held strong views against the emergence of monopolies which he expressed in his autobiography writing: “Whereas once it was the customer who favored the merchant by dealing with him, conditions changed until it was the merchant who favored the customer by selling to him. That is bad for business. Monopoly is bad for business. Profiteering is bad for business. The lack of necessity to hustle is bad for business.” Just as monopolies on consumer goods are disadvantageous to the vast mass of consumers and market efficiency as a whole, individuals should not strive to have their opinions and ideologies become superior to anyone else’s if their goal is to prevent further ideological division. To glorify one’s views above other peoples’ is harmful to maintaining the unity required to move forward and be an enterprising nation; it harms the ability of the rising generation to leave indelible marks of good upon all those who follow.
