But Van Bavel quickly added that these strategies “are up against all the other factors that are currently driving conflict and animosity, including divisive leaders like Donald Trump, gerrymandering, hyperpartisan media (including social media), etc. It’s like trying to bail out the Titanic.”
Simply put, it is difficult, if not impossible, to attempt to counter polarization at a time when partisan sectarianism is intense and pervasive.
Bavel described polarization as
both an illness from various problems in our political system and an outcome. As a result, the solution is going to be extremely complex and involve different leadership (once Trump and his inner circle leave the scene that will help a lot), as well as a number of structural changes (removing gerrymandering and other incentive structures that reinforce extremism).
Affective polarization, Bavel added,
is really just a disdain for the other political party. Political sectarianism seems to be an even worse form because now you see the other party as evil. Both of these are, of course, related to ideological polarization. But affective polarization and political sectarianism are different because they can make it impossible to cooperate with an opponent even when you agree. That’s why they are particularly problematic.
Stanley Feldman, a political scientist at Stony Brook University, pointed to another characteristic of polarization that makes it especially difficult to lower the temperature of the conflict between Republicans and Democrats: There are real, not imaginary, grounds for their mutual animosity.
In an email, Feldman wrote:
There is a reality to this conflict. There has been a great deal of social change in the US over the past few decades. Gay marriage is legal, gender norms are changing, the country is becoming more secular, immigration has increased.
Because of this, Feldman added,
It’s a mistake to suggest this is like an illness or disease. We’re talking about people’s worldviews and beliefs. As much as we may see one side or the other to be misguided and a threat to democracy, it’s still important to try to understand and take seriously their perspective. And analogies to illness or pathology will not help to reduce conflict.
There are, in Feldman’s view,
two major factors that have contributed to this. First, national elections are extremely competitive now. Partisan control of the House and Senate could change at every election. Presidential elections are decided on razor thin margins. This means that supporters of each party constantly see the possibility of losing power every election. This magnifies the perceived threat from the opposing party and increases negative attitudes toward the out-party.
The second factor?
The issues dividing the parties have changed. When the two parties fought over size of government, taxes, social welfare programs, it was possible for partisans to imagine a compromise that is more or less acceptable even if not ideal. Compromise on issues like abortion, gender roles, L.G.B.T.Q.+ rights, the role of religion is much more difficult. So losing feels like more of a threat to people’s values.
From a broader perspective, these issues, as well as immigration and the declining white majority, reflect very different ideas of what sort of society the United States should be. This makes partisan conflict feel like an existential threat to an “American” way of life. Losing political power then feels like losing your country. And the opposing parties become seen as dangers to society.
These legitimately felt fears and anxieties in the electorate provide a fertile environment for elected officials, their challengers and other institutional forces to exacerbate division.
As Feldman put it:
It’s also important to recognize the extent to which politicians, the media, social media influencers, and others have exacerbated perceptions of threat from social change. Take immigration for example. People could be reminded of the history of immigration in the US: how immigrants have contributed to American society, how second and third generations have assimilated, how previous fears of immigration have been unfounded.
Instead there are voices increasing people’s fear of immigration, suggesting that immigrants are a threat to the county, dangerous, and even less than human. Discussions of a “great replacement theory,” supposed attacks on religion, dangers of immigration, and changing gender norms undermining men’s place in society magnify perceptions of threat from social change.
Cynical politicians have learned that they can use fear and partisan hostility to their political advantage. As long as they think this is a useful strategy it will be difficult to begin to reduce polarization and partisan hostility.
In other words, as long as Trump is the Republican nominee for president, and as long as the prospect of a majority-minority country continues to propel right-wing populism, the odds for reducing the bitter animosity that now characterizes American politics remain slim.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, X and Threads.