Solving polarization from the Inside Out
Having better conversations Improves society
One of the biggest challenges facing democracy today is legislative gridlock caused by polarization. Polarized views of opposite parties have caused policy making to become a zero-sum game. Politicians are pressured into ideological extremes to appeal to the sentiments of their constituents to maintain office positions and party support. I posit implementing education of proper discussion to youths in schools based around theories of respectful discourse and critical thinking will reinforce democratic norms among citizens like mutual toleration leading to a decrease in government inefficiency and polarization.
Creating programs to better equip us to view opposing values improves how we react to them. Theorist John Dewy, for example, argues setting a proper foundation for discursive practices and norms during adolescence instills values of empathy and respect necessary for a citizen of a democratic society. Being able to assess and truly listen to something we don’t initially agree with reduces the likely hood of personalizing it and better facilitates resolution. Introducing these practices at a large scale would put a sword of understanding through the beast of polarization.
Evidence of this reasoning can be seen in lives of the mid-17th century Native American tribes. In their book The Dawn of Everything, David Graeber and David Wengrow highlight the higher presence of democratic values such as liberty and equality among native Americans than their European counterparts. They recount how natives prioritized respectful discourse and believed no individual was above another. This was the primer for peaceful and non-rivalrous discussions among their people that was influenced their governing and decision making.
Opposers might find the solution to grid lock is not in more respectful discourse but in creating a stronger executive. Theorists like Curtis Yarvin believe that government institutions have become too bloated causing for delays in policy decisions. He asserts that a C.E.O model of executive would improve government efficiency by bypassing these roadblocks speeding up government initiatives.
This however does not acknowledge that the actions of these individuals are polarizing and create new damages in themselves. Although a strong executive would move policy, they do so in disregard to democratic norms leaning more toward authoritarian practices. Additionally, policy-making was made to be is a slow process to ensure that the decision made to remedy one group doesn’t negatively impact another as discussed by Deborah Stone in her work Policy Paradox. The strong executive would do more harm to the problem of polarization as their actions disregard democratic norms and their solutions most often favor their coalition, if at all.
Another argument of opposition might be that polarization is caused by other factors, not a lack of democratic norm education. Some may argue factors like selective exposure in media, increased sentiments of individualism, or group identification factors are the cause to polarization. I can concede that these are likely influences to the issue, however, all of which can be solved by utilizing critical thinking and respectful communication. If there was a higher presence of these norms in our education system and society as a whole, individuals would be less affected by these factors thus making their contribution to increased polarization less prominent.
The antidote to misinformation is truth. Polarization is extreme difference in ideology but has grown to become mass animosity between parties that now affects the efficiency of government. There is no problem in differences of views, however, it is the inability to respect and discuss solutions that is killing democracy. Introducing critical thinking and practices of respectful discourse to the adolescences of our society work to solve the issue from within and creates a citizenship of cohesion rather than one of abscission.