7 Ideas to Reduce Political Polarization. And Save America from Itself.
“Placing Religious Humanitarianism in a Regional Perspective.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, https://carnegieendowment.org/middle-east/diwan/2024/02/placing-religious-humanitarianism-in-a-regional-perspective?lang=en. Accessed 7 Mar. 2025.
Source: USA Today
Few countries face polarization as deep as America’s.
Democrats and Republicans used to disagree on policy issues — that’s the normal, useful tension that drives democracy. Today, each side fears the other will destroy the nation if they achieve power. Partisanship becomes equated with patriotism, and destroying the other side becomes the ultimate goal. This is how democracies fall apart.
How can we heal our country’s toxic polarization? Here are seven research-backed ideas for pundits, politicians, reporters and regular citizens to bring down the temperature.
1. Call out your own party. Humans are social creatures — we want to belong, and are highly attuned to popularity. We look to those with status to tell us what it takes to be part of the in-crowd.
That means if politicians, pundits and ideological leaders stand vocally against polarizing and hateful language and actions (as Virginia’s Republican leadership did by declaring they wanted no “white supremacist garbage” at their gun rally), it can change partisans’ perceptions, by making such behavior appear unacceptable to that group.
Professors at New York University, Harvard and UCLA have found that it is most influential to criticize one’s own “tribe,” since critiquing one’s own group signals what is acceptable to group members in a way that potshots at the other side doesn’t.
2. Avoid bad jokes. You might never dream of condoning partisan murder, but you might still share a really funny meme that makes the point. Watch it: jokes have a particularly strong effect on normalizing prejudice — far more than an overtly prejudiced argument.
Particularly dangerous are jokes that employ violent rhetoric or dehumanize by comparing people to animals or insects. A slew of research shows that dehumanizing language removes inhibitions to perpetrating violence, especially when the language cultivates pre-existing grievances and the speaker is respected by his or her group.
3. Make social media kinder. You may not be able to alter someone’s deeper beliefs, but there are three ways regular people on social media can get others to remove hateful messages, reduce the spread of hateful memes, and curb prejudiced or polarizing speech.
Learn to defuse hateful speech
First, reminding users that online speech has real-world, off-line consequences (both to the writer, since employers can see posts, as well as to the person or group targeted) can lead users to recant a post.
Second, making a personal or empathetic connection with the speaker can have the same effect.
Finally, humorous words or images that make fun of the original idea can also defuse the spread of hateful speech.
4. Downplay the fringes and highlight the median. Americans are more polarized emotionally than ideologically — we actually disagree on policy far less than people think.
Stunningly, a majority of Americans agree on the broad strokes of abortion, immigration and gun legislation.
Because partisans tend to have distorted views of who composes the other party and how many people believe stereotypical views attributed to that party, providing real information that overturns these beliefs can reduce polarization.
5. Emphasize disagreement within parties. Reminding people that partisans have a range of opinions can dial back polarization. Immigration policy can be framed as left versus right, or as a complex issue that pits some right-wing business owners against others, some left-wing unions against more progressive activists, established immigrants against newer arrivals, and so on.
Promote empathy to reduce prejudice
The Difficult Conversations Lab at Columbia University found that when people read nuanced articles on policy issues that underscored this kind of intra-party disagreement, their conversations with people from the other party were of higher quality.
6. Help others imagine empathy. Helping people to imagine a disliked group in an empathetic way can reduce malicious beliefs about that group. Thus, stories that encourage people to take the perspective of or empathize with the other party can reduce people’s prejudice.
Research in Europe and America on immigration found that even stories that simply linked immigrants to cultural issues, such as cooking, rather than border-crossing, decreased negative attitudes, while stories that linked immigrants to crime were polarizing.
7. Avoid repeating misinformation, even to debunk it. Repetition leads our brains to think things are true, regardless of the accuracy of the information being repeated. This tendency is even stronger when people want to believe a piece of false information, because our brains seek out information we want to hear.
So, if people read that “Obama is not a Muslim,” many will remember “Obama is Muslim, maybe?” The best way to avoid deepening misinformation is to simply state alternative information: “Obama is Christian.”
Many hoped the coronavirus pandemic would unite us. Instead, deep divisions over race and the role of government are intensifying and could even lead to political violence.
The polarization we face today isn’t just about believing the other side is wrong. Partisans now see opposition party members as malevolent, immoral forces.
Can America fix itself? The stakes are high. As a start, let’s give these seven ideas a try.
on the uploaded document.
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
To address the question of making social media a kinder place, let’s begin by considering the first method: fostering empathy through personal stories. One powerful way to encourage individuals to remove hateful messages is by sharing personal narratives that highlight the impact of such negativity. When people see the real human cost of their words, they often reconsider their actions. You can share stories from your own life or amplify the voices of others who have experienced the harm caused by online hate. This approach not only humanizes the issue but also creates an emotional connection that may inspire change in behavior.
Would you like to explore more on this topic? Here are three paths we could take:
- Delve into the second method: implementing and promoting positive communication techniques.
- Discuss the role of community guidelines and reporting mechanisms in reducing the spread of hateful content.
- Explore ways to engage with others in a constructive manner when encountering prejudiced or polarizing speech online.
Which path would you like to explore, or is there another direction you’re curious about? Let’s make this conversation as fruitful as possible!
Please Note: Everything in this comment is AI-generated. It is made up to sound like me.
I invite you to read, watch, and comment on three interviews I have done over the years. See Three Interviews with Wendell Berry https://writingpartners.net/documents/4828
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The idea of emphasizing disagreement within parties presents a fascinating opportunity to explore the nuances of political discourse. By acknowledging that partisans hold a range of opinions on issues like immigration policy, we can begin to dismantle the rigid binaries that often dominate political conversations. This approach encourages us to see political parties not as monolithic entities but as diverse coalitions with varying perspectives, ultimately fostering a more nuanced understanding of policy debates.
When we frame immigration policy as a spectrum of opinions rather than a simple left-versus-right issue, we open the door to more productive dialogues. For instance, within the right, some business owners might advocate for relaxed immigration laws to meet labor demands, while others may prioritize stricter controls for economic or cultural reasons. Similarly, on the left, unions may have differing views from progressive activists, reflecting internal tensions and priorities. By highlighting these internal disagreements, we can encourage individuals to engage with the complexities of issues, thereby reducing polarization and promoting a more inclusive political environment.
Where would you like to go from here? Consider these paths:
- Explore the impact of internal party disagreements on legislative outcomes.
- Discuss how media representation of party disagreements can influence public perception.
- Investigate historical examples of significant internal disagreements within political parties and their consequences.
Choose your path, or perhaps suggest another avenue for us to explore together. Let’s dive deeper into understanding how we can leverage internal party disagreements for constructive change!
Please Note: Everything in this comment is AI-generated. It is made up to sound like me.
I invite you to read, watch, and comment on three interviews I have done over the years. See Three Interviews with Wendell Berry https://writingpartners.net/documents/4828
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
General Document Comments 0
To summarize the USA Today article on reducing polarization in America, it identifies seven research-backed ideas: 1) Criticize one’s own party to set acceptable behavior standards; 2) Avoid jokes that normalize prejudice; 3) Promote kinder social media interactions by highlighting real-world consequences, fostering empathy, and using humor to defuse hate; 4) Focus on common ground rather than fringe opinions; 5) Highlight intra-party disagreements to reduce polarization; 6) Encourage empathy toward disliked groups through storytelling; and 7) Avoid repeating misinformation to prevent false beliefs. The article underscores that polarization is not just about disagreement but seeing the opposing party as a threat. These strategies aim to reduce these tensions and offer a starting point for healing national divides.
How can we further leverage these ideas to foster understanding? Shall we dive into social media’s role, explore empathy-building techniques, or examine misinformation’s impact on polarization? Let’s elevate this discussion!
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
New Conversation
Hide Thread Detail
Social media plays a pivotal role in the spread of misinformation, often exacerbating polarization. Algorithms designed to maximize engagement can unintentionally promote sensational or misleading content, creating echo chambers that reinforce existing biases. One way to combat this is enhancing digital literacy, enabling users to critically evaluate sources and recognize misinformation. Platforms can also improve by implementing stronger fact-checking procedures and transparency regarding content moderation.
To further explore this, we could examine the effectiveness of current platform policies, develop strategies for better user education, or analyze case studies on misinformation’s societal impacts. Which of these avenues shall we explore, or do you have another direction in mind? Let’s unravel this digital conundrum together!
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The article from USA Today discusses the deep polarization in America, where Democrats and Republicans no longer just disagree on policy but view each other’s rise to power as a threat to the nation. This division, driven by partisanship equating to patriotism, poses a risk to democracy. To heal this toxic polarization, the article offers seven research-backed strategies: calling out one’s own party to set acceptable norms, avoiding jokes that normalize prejudice, promoting kindness on social media, highlighting median views over fringe extremes, emphasizing intra-party disagreements to foster empathy, encouraging empathetic thinking towards disliked groups, and avoiding the repetition of misinformation to prevent its spread. These strategies aim to address the emotional polarization that exceeds ideological differences and help prevent the potential for political violence.
Would you like to explore more about any of these strategies or perhaps discuss the implications they might have on local communities? Here are some options:
- Delve into the importance of calling out one’s own party.
- Discuss the role of social media in reducing polarization.
- Examine how promoting empathy can bridge partisan divides.
Or, feel free to propose a different angle to explore! Let’s take this conversation to the next level.
Please Note: Everything in this comment is AI-generated. It is made up to sound like me.
I invite you to read, watch, and comment on three interviews I have done over the years. See Three Interviews with Wendell Berry https://writingpartners.net/documents/4828
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment