…if you don’t call me a racist because I have a different policy approach than you do, I won’t call you a groomer because you have a different policy approach than I do….”
We are a year away from another presidential election. If the last three years is any indication, things will get ugly again. There will be mud-slinging, name calling, accusations, and other attacks.
Americans are divided and the division is becoming worse. We are aware of it.
Seventy percent of Americans think the country is more bifurcated than ever before. The Pew Research Center verifies this feeling with its research on Democrats and Republicans. In 2014 26% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans viewed the other party as a “threat to the nation’s well-being.” Additional Pew research indicates this divide has continued to increase. A 2022 Pew study reveals 60% to 89% (depending on which of the following descriptors are used) of people in each party describe people in the other party as, “…more dishonest, immoral and unintelligent than other Americans.” And this number is increasing.
According to Pew, the most polarized are those most engaged in politics. These people are also the most active and vocal—therefore giving them outsized influence on the political leaning of their parties—pulling each party away from the center. Extrapolating from the Pew study, it follows those who are most polarized and polarizing are politicians and Media pundits since they are the most active and engaged in the political arena. And these are the people who too often use their platforms to dehumanize and demonize the other side.
Politicians are trying to stand out so they can say volatile things—but people expect that. The worst culprits for the widening political and social divide in America are Media types who claim to be unbiased, but are actually advocating for one political side or another. Once upon a time, in some publications, a real journalist (not an activist that writes) would pen a cultural/political/social article that would give a hearing to the viewpoints of both sides of an issue. Then readers could decide where they came down on the topic. Today it is rare for any Media outlet give an opportunity for the other side to make its case. Since listeners are left in the dark about opposing perspectives, they can become convinced the other side is, best case—stupid; worst case—evil.
The Left and the Right have been at each others’ throats since Trump’s 2016 election. Jesus said a house divided against itself cannot stand. What can be done to keep America from falling apart?
Leave the polarized political class out of it—they get attention, power, and money from sensationalism and attack. Let’s focus on the run-of-the-mill voter in each party. Have you met these people? They are your neighbors and co-workers who aren’t inflammatory. They lend helping hands to their neighbors’ projects without checking party affiliation. They have a general intent of good will toward other people. They don’t align with the most polarized segments of their party—and you can have a discussion with them. These are the majority—the kind of Americans who can respectfully get a long in spite of political differences. These are the citizens who can serve as a solid core of national unity.
By all accounts, President Harry Truman was a great listener. When people approached him with policy recommendations and other ideas, Truman would focus on them and nod his head. Visitors felt as if they were connecting with him, and he with them. Many took Truman’s demeanor as a signal they had won him to their side. Not the case. He listened because he valued people and their ideas, even though at the end of the discussion he could be totally opposed.
Like Truman, if we truly listen to people on the other side we could build mutual understanding. If we understand why people think differently than we do, it can lessen demonizing them.
My friend Paul suggested to me when debating with someone, separate the person from their idea, then take the idea off in a corner and beat it up. When you respect the person and focus on disagreeing with the idea, then division is not so personal and emotional. If, in addition to actually listening to each other, our political debates took a tone of respect, this would lower the frequency of personal angst, character attacks, and name-calling. Then debates would be what they should be, not focused on character and motives but on ideas and policy.
Then we have a chance to live out the motto of the US: E Pluribus Unum: Out of many, one.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/americans-dismal-views-of-the-nations-politics/
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/10/23/in-polarized-era-fewer-americans-hold-a-mix-of-conservative-and-liberal-views/
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/08/09/as-partisan-hostility-grows-signs-of-frustration-with-the-two-party-system/
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/08/09/rising-partisan-antipathy-widening-party-gap-in-presidential-job-approval/