It seems like we are so divided, but that isn’t it precisely. We aren’t divided; it’s more like we’re scattered and pretending we’re divided.
We’ve been talking about political polarization for longer than I can imagine. You’d think by now we would have solved the problem. And we would…if we really thought it was a problem.
But deep down we don’t.
Of course, you might. You yourself have your own views and opinions. Thank God that’s true.
But we don’t. We all talk a big game about unity but we don’t want it in practice. It would mean realizing this view of our world, this massive political divide is part fiction.
The Football Player and the Flag
Even bringing up the subject of Colin Kaepernick sends some of us to our corners, ready to duke it out.
But not all of us. And not the same. We aren’t doing this stuff in equal measures.
I won’t waste our time rehashing the story. If you don’t know who Colin Kaepernick is, then a quick google search will get you more than you need. Or you could just read something I wrote a while back.
But scraping away all the build-up to reveal the story, the real story, we’ll find it isn’t about the football player or the flag at all.
One group is angry that people are getting shot and virtually no reform is happening while another is angry that a dude used to kneel (and some still do) during the national anthem.
Again, ignore the other build up and just stare at those words for a second until you see it. — These aren’t flip sides of a coin. These aren’t equal or the same anything.
We’re not talking about the same things!
So what the hell are we talking about?
What we aren’t talking about
We aren’t talking about football or polar opposites. And we aren’t talking about patriotism or political battle lines. While all these things may be window dressings of the story (meaning they do appear in the story), they aren’t the story’s theme.
We aren’t really talking about freedom or protest or even free speech. These are the rabbit holes which keep the flames of outrage burning longer than anyone’s 15 minutes of fame.
We’re talking about the narrative of the story and who gets to define it. And more specifically, who gets to measure the story.
Do I get to call this “worthy” or “Christian” or “heroic”? Does the dude from the coffee shop get to call this a “disgrace”, “unpatriotic”, or “an employment matter”? Who gets to lay claim to the story?
While there are several options for agreed upon measuring sticks, too many of us think there’s only one.
And that one is what we call political polarization.
Political Polarization
While we all know what it means to polarize or to be polarizing, we’ve adopted a narrative over the last decade that our politics has become more polarized. Which is to say the separation between left and right is wider now than it has been in a really long time.
But this view of polarization carries with it a narrative we don’t always recognize.
Through the lens of political polarization, we believe that “both sides” are the same.
Not literally, of course, but in relative terms.
So when we’re talking about nearly any subject, “both sides” are always to blame. Or that all people are being offended and so, you know, we just need to respect each other.
There’s a ring of universal truth to this. There are ways in which we all need to share in our personal responsibility for our common situation. But the narrative of political polarization carries with it a deep lie.
Asymmetric Polarization
The study of political polarization has a related truth, too often lost in the narrative. That our polarization is asymmetric, meaning that one “side” is increasingly more polarized than the other.
This truth is a nuisance to our narrative about the universal truth of polarization. Because asymmetric polarization shows us a way we’re not the same. It shows that while both are doing something, one is doing it more.
And the fly in the ointment is this: We don’t know how to deal with imbalance. The idea that we are fundamentally the same politically is intoxicating.
So, for many, the urge is to continuously ignore the asymmetry and force us to see how we are all responsible. We like to think of this as taking the high road. But in avoiding the degree or the volume of the difference, it has the psychological effect of equalizing the problem. And this deeply distorts the truth. This is the lie of polarization.
But I offer a third piece to our narrative
Differentiated Polarization
While it is true that our current political climate is more polarized and is polarized asymmetrically, it isn’t polarized on a two-dimensional scale. Nor are we polarized into two strict poles. In other words, our polarizations are different.
And one factor that makes them different is that we all choose to differentiate ourselves from each other. Not as opposites, but opponents. Even when our positions aren’t in direct conflict, we place ourselves in direct conflict.
So if we go back to the Kaepernick example, we can see two arguments which have literally nothing to do with each other being offered.
Kaepernick and his supporters speak to the need for criminal justice reform.
Critics speak to the need to respect the flag.
We aren’t just refusing to hear each other; we aren’t speaking about the same material.
One says, Hey, let’s talk about a thing.
And the other goes, Nah, let’s talk about this other thing.
But political polarization forces us into a paradigm in which we come to believe the arguments are of the same material. So we imagine fictitious common denominators between “both sides” of the story. Like suggesting that both supporters and critics are responding to their being offended. Both “have a point” or “deal with being offended.”
And what we never account for is how this mediating often furthers one argument over the other. As in this case, reinforcing the idea that these are both opinions and reflect a case of two parties both being offended. This is precisely the substance of the critic’s argument.
In a different way, asymmetric polarization needs us to realize that one side simply protested and the other reacted to the protest. These aren’t the same and one side has amplified the “offense” more than the other. That is a substantive part of the conversation and needs to be included.
But this doesn’t quite get to why we keep fighting about all of this.
It Isn’t About Being Offended
It isn’t “being offended” that motivates a protest to support criminal justice reform — it’s a commitment to justice and the tradition of freedom and equality in the community. Without all the other things we’ve added to the narrative, we should see the core of the conversation is a message about race, justice, and equality.
This isn’t a question of disrespect or small, debatable infractions on the local level. This is centuries of abuse and systemic inequality stuff.
This is what “one side” is offering. Not “we’re offended,” but a call for reform.
For the critics, the main claim is that they are offended. They claim they are offended by the protest. Or that this traditional posture of respect (kneeling) is, in this case, a sign of disrespect. It’s a giant claim of But what about my feelings?
People choose this response.
And yet, in offering this reaction to the protest, critics are placing themselves in an oppositional posture which intentionally avoids dealing with the precipitating issue of race and criminal justice reform. They place an argument of their personal offense to the protest against the material subject of the protest.
And the critics want all of us to fill in the gaps of the narrative. To rewrite the story and make this all about our getting offended. Never mind the real story, the real intent of the protest. Never mind the calls for reform and solidarity with our African American kin. Ignore what the protestors actually say, let’s talk about how we’re all the same.
But none of this is common or equal. It isn’t about offense and we’re not all offended the same. Because we aren’t talking about the same things!
This action — placing the sense of grievance over the flag and posture toward it as equal to claims of police brutality and racism in the criminal justice system — is a shocking warping of logic.
Another Way
Why does this matter? Because we claim to want to heal our division and do something about our tribalism and polarization. We claim we don’t want to live in our silos and want to have real conversations with people.
And it’s important to know that we can’t see everything through our left/right sorting machine and think it will fix itself. Nor can we claim that both sides are just as bad and if we would just shut up and listen, we might come to an agreement. Both of these oversimplifications tend to make the polarization worse.
Because the hard truth many of us are unwilling to accept is that a good portion of our neighbors are choosing to opt out of the common conversation. They don’t want unity if it means trusting the instruments of unity. In fact, many think compromise is bad! It doesn’t appear that they want unity at all: they want to win.
And some of these aren’t honest actors. They aren’t looking to have a logical conversation about race and respect which allows all sides to have their say so we can hash out a compromise we can all live with. No matter what we do or say. It’s impossible to drive away the one who always refuses compromise. They aren’t actually negotiating at the common table; they’re trying to hold it hostage.
Respect Difference
It’s hard to find unity when we aren’t all searching for it. But we can still do something. We can stop looking at our disputes as equal and opposite. And we can discourage our friends and neighbors from imposing illogical assumptions onto real conversations.
We can make the common table common again.
It doesn’t have to be a place where nobody has a strong opinion or we never debate the merits of protest. Our table shouldn’t be a place which reinforces narrative-warping polarization either. But a place which honors fair conversation.
At this table, we work to eschew bothsidesism and whataboutism and embrace our differentiated polarized present.
And it can help depolarize us to know that most of the narrative we tell ourselves about political polarization is fiction. That we can essentially carry common things very differently, root for our team, and still have a reasonable conversation. Not because we’re mature, but because we’re awake to the lies we tell ourselves and the way we manipulate each other.
Maybe then we can talk with each other; really talk with each other. And when we do, we can also recognize another really hard truth. It’s not our fault that some choose not to.