Commentators from across the political spectrum warn us that extreme partisan polarization is dissolving all bases for political cooperation, thereby undermining our democracy.\u00a0 The near total consensus on this point is suspicious.\u00a0 A recent Pew study finds that although citizens want politicians to compromise more, they tend to blame only their political opponents for the deadlock. \u00a0In calling for conciliation, they seek capitulation from the other side. \u00a0The warnings about polarization might themselves be displays of polarization.<\/p>\n
Discussions of polarization tend to fix on what polarization does to our politics — policy stalemates, negative campaigns, partisan hostility, and so on.\u00a0 Were polarization simply a matter of its political manifestations, the solution would be simply that everyone should take a moment to recognize that, despite partisan divides, we\u2019re all ultimately on the same team. \u00a0The trouble is that polarization runs deeper than this.\u00a0 It affects us on the inside.<\/p>\n
To see this, it helps to distinguish political<\/em> polarization from belief<\/em> polarization.\u00a0 The former is the name for the condition of political intransigence that is now familiar.\u00a0 The latter refers to a phenomenon by which interactions with likeminded others transform us into more extreme versions of ourselves. \u00a0The two are related, of course.\u00a0 And seeing the contribution that belief polarization makes to political polarization is crucial for understanding current political dysfunctions.<\/p>\n Belief polarization renders us more extreme, in two sense of the term.\u00a0 First, when we surround ourselves only with likeminded others, we become inordinately confident <\/em>in our commitments.\u00a0 Thus in the course of belief polarization, one who is inclined to believe that climate change is a hoax will become more convinced <\/em>that it is.\u00a0 Second, belief polarization also leads us to adopt more extreme beliefs<\/em>.\u00a0 For example, when juries are agreed that a punitive award is in order, in the course of their discussion each member comes to favor a more severe punishment. In short, when people get together with likeminded others, each intensifies their level of confidence in a belief that is more extreme than the belief with which they started.<\/p>\n Belief polarization is uncommonly robust.\u00a0 It has been extensively studied around the world and found in likeminded groups of almost all kinds, from political parties, business firms, and juries to social clubs, classrooms, and informal gatherings of neighbors.\u00a0 Our vulnerability to it remains constant regardless of education, economic status, gender, race, profession, and political orientation.\u00a0 What\u2019s more, our susceptibility does not vary with the point <\/em>of our interactions; we belief polarize when chatting about mundane matters of fact (such as the elevation of a particular city), and we belief polarize when deliberating together about what collective action to take in response to a social problem (such as political corruption).\u00a0 Finally, although likeminded discussion is a reliable site for studying belief polarization, research suggests that neither discussion nor face-to-face group interaction is necessary for the effect.\u00a0 It can be initiated simply by presenting subjects with evidence that a belief they hold is popular with others who share their social identity.\u00a0 Consequently, features of the social environment can induce shifts towards extremity.<\/p>\n Belief polarization is philosophically disconcerting.\u00a0 However, it is also politically hazardous.\u00a0 Belief polarization alters what we believe about others.\u00a0 As we transform into more extreme versions of ourselves, we also come to adopt increasingly negative stances towards those we perceive to be different.\u00a0 As we shift towards a more extreme position, opposing views begin to look increasingly unfounded, unreasonable, and irrational.\u00a0 Accordingly, those who hold such views appear to us as ignorant, na\u00efve, and malign.\u00a0 Further, as we shift toward extremity, we come to regard our opponents as the extremists.\u00a0 We lose the ability to recognize nuance in their views; we come to see them a monolith of fanaticism. \u00a0As might be expected, we grow distrustful of them, increasingly inclined to fault them with being lazy, unpatriotic, unintelligent, and treacherous.\u00a0 In the end, once belief polarization has set in, amiable interactions with our political opponents tend to further our extremity; calls to \u201creach across the aisle\u201d can backfire.\u00a0 Ironically, as we come to regard our opponents in these ways, we come to more fully fit the description we ascribe to them.<\/p>\n Belief and political polarization hence are intertwined in a downward-spiraling dynamic. \u00a0As we come to see our political rivals as irrational and untrustworthy extremists, we also grow less likely to regard them as capable of proper democratic citizenship.\u00a0 Politically, they appear to us more as obstacles to be overcome than as political equals.\u00a0 Attempts at civility and cooperation begin to look Pollyannaish, if not positively complicit.\u00a0 The basis for regarding those with whom we disagree as nonetheless our fellow citizens, each entitled to an equal say, recedes.\u00a0 So we hive together in likeminded political enclaves, thus occasioning further belief polarization.\u00a0 As a result, democracy devolves into a cold civil war.<\/p>\n