Liliana Mason (2018) tells us that “most strongly identified partisans believe (correctly or not) that their party is the generally favored party” in America (p. 83). Essentially the more strongly one aligns with their political party, the more convinced they will become that their views must reflect those of the majority. But in a country with two dominant political parties—Republican and Democrat—clearly one of these groups must be wrong.
With only 63 percent of voters in a 2012 survey willing to align with a particular party, reluctance to affiliate with either is at an all-time low (compared with 80 percent between 1952 and 1964). Yet when accounting for right or left-leaning independents, voting along party lines is at its peak over the past century despite this hesitancy to be branded politically (Abramowitz, 2019, p. 4-5).
Chillingly, in weeks after the 2012 election in which Republicans lost to Democrats, it was found that Republicans felt “sadder than Bostonians in the week after the Boston Marathon bombing” (Mason, 2018, p. 84). Their self-esteem suffered such a heavy blow that they felt more impacted by a presidential election than city residents felt after a local terrorist attack. How could party identification lead to such violently strong emotions?
In 1992, Americans’ worldviews were relatively equally divided along party lines. But by 2016, 60 percent of those with a fixed worldview identified as Republicans, while 71 percent of those with fluid worldviews identified as Democrats (Hetherington & Weiler, 2018, p. 23). Today challenging someone’s politics isn’t merely opposing their stance on issues; it often threatens their fundamental belief system. In essence, the political has become much more personal.
A fluid person is likely to “revel in the new, the unconventional, and the nontraditional” (Hetherington & Weiler, 2018, p. 37). Conversely, fixed individuals are much more likely to “crave cognitive closure” (Hetherington & Weiler, 2018, p. 33)—they prefer questions without nuance or fluctuation, inclined to view the world in black and white rather than shades of grey. With all the subtlety of a Molotov cocktail, Trump makes perfect sense for a fixed candidate from this perspective.
Though not in alignment with typical Republican ideals, Trump was seen as solid and self-assured— in the face of irrefutable facts, he was unwilling to admit fault. An unmovable force. Even when confronted with his own words, he would sometimes deny past statements captured on video. Dishonest? Yes. But also unwavering and direct. All the steadiness from a leader that a fixed personality is clamoring for.
How is it that even faced with reality, so many of Trump’s supporters were—and still are—willing to ignore objective truths in favor of “alternative facts?” Is this post-truth denialism a disease limited to just Republicanism?
In a 2013 study, participants were asked to solve a math problem that either proved or disproved the efficacy of gun control. The math problem had a quantitatively correct answer based on the dataset. Yet even the most mathematically skilled were 45 percent more likely to answer the question wrong if the solution didn’t align with their political beliefs. Neither Democrats nor Republicans were immune from this effect (Van Bavel, 2020).
Given the self-selection of trusted media outlets, people are more likely to seek out data that affirms their preconceived notions. With an increased propensity for individuals to scour social media rather than reputable sources for answers, many functionally exist in an echo chamber, facing fewer challenges to often faulty information (TEDx Talks, 2017).
Because of these echo chambers the majority cling to, it becomes easy to lose connection with those holding opposing viewpoints. The perception of our adversaries can become ludicrously skewed. A 2019 study conducted by More in Common shows that an estimated 55 percent of Republicans and Democrats perceive the opposing party to have extreme views. In reality, that number lies at about 30 percent (More in Common, 2019). So while the majority of both parties view themselves in conflict with partisan fanatics, there are a significant number of issues that might be solved with compromise.
But with all this misinformation flowing, is compromise even feasible? Or are we doomed to live in this partisan hellmouth?
Jay Van Bavel suggests that the antidote lies in self-criticism, fact-checking, and approaching discussions with an open mind (TEDx Talks, 2017). If we’re willing to acknowledge the deficiency in our own arguments and accept facts from unbiased sources counter to preconceptions, then objective truth could be achieved. But when a friend or neighbor insists that all contrary opinions are based on “fake news” and portrays the opposition party as the enemy, has an impasse been reached?
Perhaps the best hope lies in addressing one another with an open mind and “affirming [each other’s] common humanity” (TEDx Talks, 2017). It’s easier to demonize a politician on TV than it is your libertarian co-worker or populist babysitter—your conservative grandfather or your progressive niece. Attempting total consensus may be naive, but mutual respect is still a worthwhile pursuit. Certainly better than screaming into the abyss.
References
Abramowitz, A.I. (2019). The great alignment: Race, party transformation, and the rise of Donald Trump. Yale University Press.
Hetherington, M., & Weiler, J. (2018). Prius or pickup?: How the answers to four simple questions explain America’s great divide. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. The University of Chicago Press.
More in Common. (2019). The perception gap. https://perceptiongap.us/
TEDx Talks. (2017, April 14). The dangers of the partisan brain | Jay Van Bavel | TEDxSkoll [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOkFWZLJk8I
Van Bavel, J. (2020, February). Do politics make us irrational? [Video]. TED-Ed. https://www.ted.com/talks/jay_van_bavel_do_politics_make_us_irrational
Comments