Fighting back against polarization

Polarization is one of the defining features of U.S. politics in recent years. One can hardly so much as turn on the news and find any number of features invoking it. The Democratic and Republican parties? Polarized. Voters in the masses? Polarized. Even the types of news sources that people tune into (a la MSNBC and FOX) — you guessed it, polarized.

When I first started graduate school at Princeton pushing on three years ago this August, one of the key motivators that drove my research interests was to better under my own experience growing up — from what motivated my political beliefs and interests to what prompted such large divisions in the world around me. There’s no simple answer for either of these questions, although every time I tune into the news the past few weeks, I am reminded of both how prevalent these divisions are and how much worse they have gotten over the past few years.

Consider, for example, almost anything pertaining to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. Republicans and Democrats are on strikingly different pages for almost every aspect of the pandemic imaginable: the timeline for when to reopen; whose “fault” the consequences of the pandemic are; which party is handling it better; and even the number of people that have died from it. That last point should be particularly concerning for everyone given that you can debate policies and you can debate politics — but you can’t debate cold hard numbers.

You can at times distort the presentation of those numbers. If you think critically and know how to count, however, then you can represent them in any way you so choose to have the reference point that you so wish (at which point, you will either realize you are correct in whatever priors that you had, in which case please do share with the world your insight and the corresponding facts to back you up; or you will realize that you are incorrect, in which case you should probably cut your losses and stop right there). And this extends to any information circulating out there that could potentially be misrepresented or otherwise distorted.

It is now more critical than ever to question critically and thoughtfully (but most importantly, not unfoundedly) information pertaining to the pandemic being circulated online and in the news. Politicians of all stripes have different incentives for taking different courses of action. That’s simply a fact of life and a fact of politics. But now of all times is not the occasion to blindly follow one party or the other.

Most people would probably agree that our current situation is not ideal and that we should begin to open our economy when it is safe to do so with so many families out of work and out of money right now. Similarly, most people would probably agree that we should do what we can as a country to minimize our losses and help protect those who are most vulnerable because life is itself valuable.

At a time where affective polarization drives so many of people’s day-today decisions and interactions, it is critical to not lose sight of what matters most. It is critical not to overlook areas of agreement with people we’ve been increasingly socialized to view as inherently distrustful simply because of a D or an R next to their name. And it is critical to think critically, being cautious to avoid jumping to conclusions or rushing forward with a course of action that may have unintended consequences that could have easily been avoided by engaging more with alternatives.

The pandemic has frustrated people left and right by forcing them indoors, but we cannot let it win. And with so many lives already having been lost and so many families already struggling to pay their bills, the stakes could not be higher.