Our Partisan Hatred Need Not be Locked In
The emotionally wrenching 2024 election witnessed Americans too sure of their negative views about the character and intelligence of their political opponents. What if some of what they think is wrong?
Pew Research polling revealed that from 2016-2020, both Republicans and Democrats did intensify their feelings that the other party is more “closed-minded,” “dishonest,” “immoral” and “unintelligent” than other Americans. In short, many see the other side as unethical and stupid. That story that’s been “trending” for years.
There’s a different story worth examining. Research by Northwestern University’s Curtis Puryear and University of North Carolina’s Kurt Gray questioned such assumptions. In one series of studies, they tested what Democrats and Republicans thought about the basic morality of each other and whether wrong perceptions could be changed. They found that between 2013 and 2018 both liberals and conservatives did increase their use of words like “rapist,” “pedophile,” “felon” and “sociopath” in political tweets about the other side’s lack of moral values, though the prevalence of such words decreased by 2022. More hopefully, they found that Republicans and Democrats greatly overestimated how much their political opponents actually sanctioned immoral behavior. For example, Democrats estimated that more than 25 percent of Republicans thought wrongful imprisonment was acceptable but surveys of Republicans found that only 4 percent agreed that it was. As for Republicans, 32 percent believed Democrats approved of infidelity while fewer than 5 percent did.
The same series of studies assessed whether wrong assumptions could be changed. Participants were exposed to the opposing political beliefs of a (fictional) political character. The portrayal corrected the morality bias revealed in the earlier studies. This correction lessened participants’ dehumanization of political opponents and increased their reported willingness to engage and collaborate with them.
So if our political opponents are not the evil people that politicians and the partisan media portray, might they also be more intelligent than we give them credit for? In a separate research effort, Puryear and Gray studied if it was possible to increase the respect people had for political opponents based on how those opponents approached political issues. The conclusion was that politicians who used what Puryear and Gray call “balanced pragmatism” gained increased respect from participants of an opposing political party.
“Balanced pragmatism” involves using thoughtful reasoning, such as being willing to see things from different perspectives and more thoroughly evaluating the context surrounding an issue. When watching videos of politicians dealing with nonpartisan issues using balance pragmatism, participants viewed political opponents as reasonable, moral and authentic.
In another study participants saw tweets of 120 member of Congress dealing with divisive issues. Tweets from politicians that reflected balanced pragmatism received high scores indicating participants’ respect and willingness to engage. In contrast, tweets that demonstrated partisan loyalty and divisive anger got low scores. In yet another part of the research, participants demonstrated they were willing to engage in a conversation with political opponents on immigration as much as they were with supporters if the former demonstrated balanced pragmatism.
Reflecting on their research, Gray notes that when we think political opponents are immoral, “[W]e just want to rail against the other side and their evilness.” At the same time, as both researchers note, “[T]aking advantage of every opportunity to help people across the aisle see our own side’s capacity for wisdom may be vital to combating partisan animosity.”
Wisdom, of course, is more than fact-based knowledge. When “the facts” are themselves hotly debated and subject to claims of “fake news” and “alternative facts,” we can’t rely on facts alone to help people cross the political divide. Research by German psychologist Emily Kubin and colleagues suggests that the power of sharing personal experiences involving harm – such as what it was like to face a decision on abortion or handle a tragedy involving guns - can be more persuasive. They make the sharer seem more rational than just a fact-based argument. They also increase moral understanding and decrease political intolerance.
The 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer found that 53 percent of U.S. respondents said “our country is more divided today than in the past.” Seventy-seven percent said that “the lack of civility and mutual trust is the worst I have ever seen.” Millions of Americans are worried about such statistics. On the positive side, a 2021 Ipsos poll found 93 percent of respondents saying it’s important to reduce divisiveness and 71 percent agreed that Americans share more common ground than is evident from what politicians and the media say.
The solution to our political divisiveness lies at least in large part on how we use the brain tissue that sits between our ears. Being open to rethinking how you think about the opposition and hearing the personal stories that underlie their beliefs can help. At the same time, politicians who want to appeal more to unity than division can find some success in using balanced pragmatism. The keys to unlocking the door of partisan hatred are there, if people will use them.
Photo Credit: larisa - pixabay.com
(If you do not currently subscribe to thinkanew.org and wish to receive future posts, send an email with the word SUBSCRIBE to responsibleleadr@gmail.com)
