Co-host/Producer (2:25)

Timothy Redman is an award winning educator and author of Political Tribalism. In How Hyper Partisanship Dumbs Down Democracy and How to Fix it, he explains how conspiracy theories and hardline rhetoric can weaken democracy and why fixing it isn't just up to politicians, but all of us.

David Beckmeyer (2:43)

Stay with us.

Actor/Reader (Shakespeare/Greek Mythology) (2:44)

Stop cursing this land. Calm yourself. If you exile yourselves and live with foreigners, then I predict you will ache for this country like a lost lover. A disease lover. No. This land will grow and become ever greater. So your answer.

David Beckmeyer (3:13)

Timothy Redmond, thank you so much for making time for our little program.

Dr. Timothy Redmond (3:16)

Thank you so much for having me. It's a. It's a pleasure to be here.

David Beckmeyer (3:20)

Yeah. Certainly the book looks like the kind of topic that our audience definitely talks about. So tell us real quick the name of the book.

Dr. Timothy Redmond (3:29)

The book is titled Political Tribalism in America. How Hyper Partisanship Dumbs Down Democracy and How to Fix It.

David Beckmeyer (3:37)

I love it. Yeah, that's. That's maybe that's the long title for our whole podcast. Yeah. And you talk about, you know, how it, how describalism. And we've talked about this on the show before, how it doesn't just divide us socially, but it kind of reshapes how we see and process information. I don't know if you saw, but we had like, oh, so Vic for us on and, and she's working. She's talked about sort of the idea of knowledge resistance. Jake Mackey has kind of talked about this idea of sort of epistemic silos. So give us your sort of perspective on what this means in practice.

Dr. Timothy Redmond (4:13)

Sure. The way that I structured the book, so when I think about epistemology and I sort of think of the epistemological vigilance model where it talks about, you have to evaluate the sources of a claim, you have to know how to evaluate a claim, and then you have to be able to evaluate the receiver of information. And that really, I do talk about evaluating sources and evaluating claims. There's a chapter for each. But I start the book with evaluating the receiver of claims. And particularly I'm talking about evaluating ourselves and how we receive information. And that's why I start with this notion of political tribalism and, and the importance of party attachments. And political scientists talk about a folk theory of democracy, which is the democratic ideal, where we sort of educate ourselves on the issues, adopt our, hopefully doing so in an objective, broad manner, looking at information from both sides, objectively evaluating that information and then coming to our own conclusions and then identifying with. With a political party that best represents our views on an array of issues. But the political tribal model sort of flips that on its head. And we start with the party, and then we adopt our issue positions from the party. And once we do that, then you're going to have all of the biases associated with motivated reasoning kick in. And so what I do after, I kind of talk about political tribalism and then I talk about the adoption, how we adopt the issues that our party adopts. And then I break it down into essentially like the thought process, how we gather information, what information we seek. That would be your information silos, you know, selective exposure idea. Then I talk about perception and how our political tribes, political identities can even affect how we perceive information, how Democrats and Republicans can look at the same event and see it very differently. And then I talk about how we evaluate all different kinds of information. And that's when I get into talking about how to evaluate arguments. But I also talk about evaluating news sources and evaluating. I have stuff in there about deepfakes and cheap fakes and all different statistical information, polling. And so there's a ton of stuff in there, but it all revolves around this. I'm trying to raise awareness about our own personal biases and how that affects everything that really we think about when it comes to politics.

David Beckmeyer (7:10)

Yeah, and we talk about that a lot. We've talked about it with a lot of different folks on this show in different ways to try to sort of identify because it's so sort of, you know, subconscious. We don't really notice when we're doing it. And we can sometimes see it in other people, but we just can't see it in ourselves. And so, I mean, that's one of the tools we talk about, is maybe having some trusted folks that can help you check yourself. But, you know, other than that, I mean, did you point out any sort of, I don't know, tricks or ideas you can use to kind of tell when you're kind of doing this, you know, when you're kind of using one of those cognitive biases or otherwise?

Dr. Timothy Redmond (7:44)

Yeah, they're at the end of every chapter. I sort of have a, like a what you can do section. And so I get into a lot of those. And it. And it's basically based on the chapter and what I'm discussing. So if it's evaluating political arguments, I talk about identifying the conclusion, identifying the premises, how to map out arguments, and then I get into some logical fallacies to help you be able to identify those. When I talk about media sources, I talk about bias in the media and what kind of biases are prevalent, what kind are not, and what sources are most reliable. So it really depends on the chapter for other things like the. The tribalism. It's just that stuff is hard, a little bit harder because it's sort of just being able to recognize when you start to get emotional or when you start taking the news personally, or maybe you hear something about an elected official doing something wrong and you're really not sure who that elected official is. And if you. If your first thought is, oh, my gosh, I hope they're not a Republican or I hope they're not a Democrat, you know, it's little things like that that you can try to make yourself aware of and hopefully catch yourself. And I'VE noticed since I've become aware of this research and really started to think about this and really start to try to practice this in my own life. I'm always screwing up, but I've become much better because. Because the more you practice these things, the more it becomes kind of commonplace and the more I'm able to catch myself when I'm doing it. So it does work. It's a lot of hard work, but it does work. And so I try to give little things at the end of each chapter that people could try to incorporate into their daily lives.

David Beckmeyer (9:31)

Oh, that's great. Yeah. I mean, I've been doing this show for three years and I still find myself, you know, if I find some new person, I don't know much about it. I try to check as quick as I can, are they Republican or Democrat?

Co-host/Producer (9:41)

Right.

David Beckmeyer (9:42)

Like, I still do it. I can't stop. Yeah, I know. Despite everything. Yeah. So, you know, you and others we've talked to as well have kind of talked about this idea of how these distortions undermine some of these core Democratic functions like representation and accountability and what you refer to as loser's consent, which I think is similar to what Kevin Bacon. Kevin Bacon, Kevin Smith has called the loser's burden. So what are these, you know, those kind of breakdowns and distortions look like, and how do they show up and sort of random real life in real terms?

Dr. Timothy Redmond (10:16)

Well, I think you're, you're starting to see it. It's been happening for a while. It, it manifests itself in things like not my President. You started to see that with George Bush and then with Obama. You start to see that with conspiracy theories about elections being stolen and, and all of these ways in which one side wants to try to rationalize a loss to the other side or deny the fact that they lost to the other side and the notion of losers consent. Political scientists say that this is really a foundational democratic principle that we have been fortunate to have for the most part throughout US History, with a huge exception being the Civil War, obviously with the election of Lincoln and the secession of some Southern states. But we've grown accustomed to peaceful transfers of power. And that is what makes democracy work. Obviously, when you stop to think about it, it's the side that loses. Half of the country right now is going to be very upset with whatever outcome of the election takes place. And the question is, are they going to cons to the loss? Are they going to accept the fact that they lost and move on and acknowledge that the other party won? And it's their right to be in power. And that's, that's critical. The other part of that, though, is what I, another thing I talk about in the book is the victors need to be magnanimous. And that's something that we're losing as well. Where it's, and this increasingly you hear presidents talk about, well, I have a mandate, even if they might win with 51% of the vote or something like that. But they always, if you win, it doesn't matter if it's by a vote, you have a mandate and you're going to impose your party's vision or your platform on the rest of the country. And that's really just not how our system is supposed to work. The Madisonian system is one of compromise and working together, working across the aisle. And so both parties have a responsibility. After every election, the winners have to reach the hand across the aisle and say, just because you lost it doesn't mean your voice isn't going to be considered or your interests aren't going to be considered. And the people that lose the election need to acknowledge the fact that they lost and recognize that the other party is in power for the next two years, four years, whatever it might be.

David Beckmeyer (13:03)

Well, and that's a key part of this idea too, is just this idea that there's going to be another election. So it's like, you know, you, you know, pick yourself up and get ready for the next one.

Dr. Timothy Redmond (13:14)

Yes. And, and I think too things like our federal system can, historically has been supportive. Right. If your party loses at the national level, your party still might be in control at the state level and helps ease the hurt of a loss at the national level too. And it's always with midterms, usually the president's party. It's almost like clockwork throughout American history. The President's party loses seats in Congress and so you don't even have to wait four years. But there's this growing, as things become more partisan, there's this existential nature to our elections now where everyone is speaking in, in these really dramatic terms and thinking it's the end of the world if they don't win. And, and that, that's dangerous because people start to believe that and they, I don't know, it, it can really lead to a downward spiral.

Co-host/Producer (14:13)

Yeah, for sure.

David Beckmeyer (14:15)

So, so you, we talked about how you make this connection between the Austria and, and losers consent. So for listeners who might not know the story, can, can you walk us through that and what the link is?

Dr. Timothy Redmond (14:29)

Well, I'm A big fan of, of Greek mythology and there's, it's, there's a lot of characters and stuff, so I'll try to streamline it as much as I can if, if your listeners remember anything about the Trojan War, maybe. So there was this woman, Helen, who was supposedly the most beautiful woman in the world. And this prince from Troy takes her, and this from a king in Greece. His name was Menelaus. And so Menelaus goes to his brother Agamemnon and he says, they stole my wife and we have to go get her back. And so this is the beginnings of the Trojan War. But to get their ships to Troy, Agamemnon, the king who was leading this military venture, had to kill his daughter, sacrifice her to the gods. And so he kills his own daughter and they go off to fight this war. Well, his wife was furious that he killed their daughter. And so this war lasts for 10 years and she's just waiting for him to return if he does return and she wants to kill him in revenge. And so finally the Trojans are, Trojan War is over, The Greeks win, he comes back and sure enough, she kills him. Now, they had a son together and the Orestes, when that son is all grown up, she had sent him into exile, but now he's all grown up and he comes back. And the moral dilemma in the story is you sort of have these two moral principles that were important in the Greek world. One is that you should never harm a family member. And the other was that if someone harms your family member, you have to avenge that harm. And so Orestes is kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place, right, because he, he has to avenge the death of his father. But in doing so, he's got to kill his mother because his mom killed his dad. And that would be causing harm to a family member. So he, he goes back and he ends up killing his mom. And then there are these demon like creatures called the Furies who, who start to haunt him because he committed this terrible crime of killing his mother. And so they're, they're just following around the Greek world and just making his life miserable. And he ends up in Athens. And while they're in Athens, Athena comes, the goddess of, she's the goddess of wisdom. And so she comes and she's like, what's going on here? And, and Orestes and the Furies are arguing and, and she says, well, why don't we just call together a group of citizens and you can both make your case. And we'll make, you know, we'll make a decision. And does that sound fair to you? And Orestes says yes, that sounds fair. And the Fury says yes, that sounds fair. We'll abide by whatever decision you make. And so they essentially have like a trial and they go through their arguments, Orestes makes his argument, the Furies make their arguments and then the citizens come forward and vote. And it's a real moral dilemma. Right? So it's a really close vote. Athena actually has to cast the tie breaking vote, but they side with arrestees. And when this happens and how. So usually this story, the way that the story is interpreted is the, the importance of the, the founding of the state and having third party punishments because that's how you prevent this endless cycle of violence, right? Where someone from this group kills someone from the other group. Well now someone from the other group's got to kill someone from this group. Right? And it will never end. But when you have a third party, a government, a jury system, something like that, that can finally bring that to a close. Right? But the thing that fascinates me about the story and I think with the losers consent is when the decision is handed down, the Furies say they're not going to abide by the decision. And they said they're going to bring bloodshed to this land. And they're not accepting, right, they're not consenting. Before the whole process, Athena laid out, this is how it's going to work. You'll make your case, you make your case, we're going to vote. And they said yes, we'll accept that decision. Then of course, when they lost and they didn't like the outcome of that decision, they said we're not going to accept it and we're going to basically start a civil war. And Athena stepped forward and she said, look, you agreed to this, this was the process, it was a fair process. You agreed beforehand. But also don't worry, your interests are going to be respected. You are going to be very well respected here. And you really, you don't have anything to worry about. You don't need to be ashamed or scared. And that calms the Furies down. And they say you would be willing to do that for us. And she said yes. And so they ultimately accept the decision. And for me that, that was very telling. I think that was, you know, and I had read this story so many times, but as I never really picked up on that or saw that maybe as important because I never really thought much about the loser's consent until until recently. And that really struck me. I just remember reading through that and like, wow, I never picked up on this before. And this is incredible. And you can see that the Greeks were still struggling with that very issue with the establishment of democracy and people accepting the decisions when you don't like them. And I thought it was interesting. It wasn't just that getting the Furies to accept it, but the way in which Athena did that. And it harkens back to what I was talking about earlier, about the victors need to be magnanimous and bring in people from the opposing side into the government, into leadership, have their concerns heard, and. And let them participate in the political process. And that's the thing that makes democracy work. The losers have to consent and the winners have to be magnanimous.

David Beckmeyer (20:40)

So. So who do you think can play that role of Athena for us?

Dr. Timothy Redmond (20:44)

Oh, gosh, it's a great question. I don't know. I don't know. I think my hope is the American people. You know, I am an optimist by nature. I think there's most. Most people out there want it to work and believe in consenting to a loss and being magnanimous in victory. But I think a lot of times those voices aren't heard. They're crowded out by the clamor on social media. And then that. That sort of scares everybody else. You know, even. Even if you're kind of more towards the middle or when you hear the most extreme voices on the other side, it can sort of push you towards the extreme of your own side. And so I think it's just. There needs to be a collective effort of the people, you know, to say, this is too important. This is. We're not going to do this anymore. We're not going to abide by this stuff anymore. But it's tough because there's so many incentives pulling media in the other direction, pulling elected officials in the other direction. And so it's going to take a lot of work. I mean, I can't say I'm hopeful. I'm optimistic. I hope it works out, but I don't know. Um, you know, I. I don't think there's one Athena who's going to come along and save us. I think it's going to be an effort for each individual, and that's a large reason why I wrote the book, to try to help people get there.

Co-host/Producer (22:25)

Yeah.

David Beckmeyer (22:27)

So speaking of the media, you know, and I've kind of shouted into the force about this one a lot, too, that, that, you know, you. You say that the, you know, mainstream media, media isn't as. They're not the, the outlets aren't as partisan as, as a lot of people assume. And, and like I said, I've tried to make that case as well, not very successfully. So what are some of the main reasons people on both sides believe it's so biased? And what does the research actually show about that?

Dr. Timothy Redmond (22:58)

It's fascinating. There's several reasons that I highlight. I'll just touch on a few. But one of the most basic ones is that people often don't know the difference between a news report and an editorial. And I come across this online all the time, and I think it's by people groups trying to stir the pot. I mean, these are people who are financially benefiting from you turning away from other news sources. Right? I mean, they want to tell you the mainstream news sources are biased and don't listen to them. Listen to me. So there's a financial incentive for them to do this. And a lot of this I see coming from groups like that. But they would have hear a headline and this biased newspaper, this biased TV station or whatever, and they're referencing an editorial, but they paint the entire newspaper, for example, with this broad brush. If there's a liberal or conservative editorial, and they'll post that, and then they say, you know, the Wall Street Journal or the conservative bias of the Wall Street Journal or the liberal bias of the New York Times or something like that, and it's an editorial. The editorial is completely different department from the main news section. But a lot of people don't know that. And some polling has borne that out. They've asked people, do you know the difference between an editorial and a news report, between a journalist and a column? Some 26% of Americans say they don't. And those are the only ones that are willing to admit that they don't. Right. So that number could be a little bit higher. So I think that's part of the problem. If you read an editorial, liberal editorial in the New York Times, you might just think that's evidence of a liberal bias in the New York Times or a conservative editorial in the Wall Street Journal. Right. So I think that's one reason. Another reason is there's different kinds of biases. So there's some calm different by different names, but there's adversarial bias, for example. And that's just journalists generally take an adversarial stance towards politicians and powerful people. And so if you're reading a story about your favorite politician and it's negative. They're trying to dig up dirt on that person or something like that. You might see that as a partisan bias or they're just attacking this person because they're, you know, they favor this other political party. But it's just this is what they do. You know, if one candidate is going to is, you know, embroiled in a, some kind of sex scandal or, you know, money laundering scandal or something like that, it doesn't matter what party that person's from, that's going to get covered. And related bias would be a structural bias. Like the media is a business, right? And they've got to get clicks, they've got to for advertising. And so if there's some kind of salacious story or something like that, they're going, they're going to cover it. It doesn't matter if you've got a D or an R after your name. But people often see that and misinterpret those biases as a partisan bias. But I think the one that's most interesting and probably most pernicious is and hardest to detect is something called the hostile media effect, which is simply the bias really isn't in the media. It's in ourselves. And the way that the studies reveal this is you give the exact same article to a Democrat and a Republican and you ask them to evaluate it whether or not it's biased. There's no masthat on, so you don't know the source. You just give it to them, them. And Republicans will read it and they'll say it's a liberal bias. Democrats will read it and say there's a conservative bias and they're reading the exact same story. And when they construct these stories, they often do so in, in a very balanced way. You know, if they quote a Republican for five lines, they'll quote a Democrat for five lines. So they balance it in every way they possibly can. So what's happening is the people reading the article are bringing their own biases to it. And if you are someone who's way on the left, something that's in the center is going to be to your right. So you're going to see that as biased. And if you're way over to the right and you see something straight down the middle because it's to your left, you're going to see it to the left. And so I think that's the most common reason, but it's also the hardest one to get people to accept. And I have done this. You know, I do a lot of adult education programs. And I, and I do this exercise with people and it's fascinating because I give them five different articles from five different sources and ask them, try to identify which, which one is from Wall Street Journal, which one is New York Times, you know, and they can't, they can't do it without the, you know, you'll have people saying the wa. The Washington Post article is, well, this has to be from Fox News, right? I mean, this is like so slanted towards the right. And like, actually it's the Washington Post. And so it's very revealing. I think it's. Certain activities like that for people can be eye opening. But the best research on this is they just find that the mainstream media sources have no consistent ideological bias. Sometimes they might be a little to the left, sometimes a little bit to the right, but it's minimal. And when you look at it over time, it basically cancels out and it, but it is, it's so hard to get people to believe that one, I think, again, because there's this constant drumbeat telling you that the media is biased. And, and then the other part, as I said, it's so hard because we're in our own heads and it's hard to see that the bias is actually kind of. It's like the calls coming from inside the house, kind of the horror movie thing, right? The bias is coming from inside our heads. And that's really hard to get people to see.

David Beckmeyer (29:34)

So what gives you hope that we can move beyond this kind of tribal fog that we're in and that people can kind of rediscover a shared commitment?

Dr. Timothy Redmond (29:45)

Well, I guess, I think looking back at American history, there's been other times where things have been rough. And I just hope that people will see that there's a lot more that unites us than divides us. And a lot of the benefits that we get are because we live together. I am a strong believer in the Madisonian system. And I think Madison, the way that he designed our government, it's not working as it was designed. But he truly believed that diversity was a strength. This was a huge debate at the time of the Constitutional Convention and the ratification of the Constitution. There were a lot of people saying, country this large, that's this diverse, it will just never work. And at that time, the diversity was basically just different kinds of Christians and different kinds of lifestyles. Slave based economy versus a mercantile based economy, different climates. People are just like, you can't have a republic that's this large. And Madison took the opposite approach. And he said, the diversity will be this country's strength, because the way that he envisioned it, no one would basically be in the majority. You were going to have all of these diverse ideas and interests, and then you'd all get together in one room, we call it a Congress, and you'd sit down in Congress and everyone would air their ideas, and you would. Maybe the best ideas would float to the top, or you would have this spirited debate, and you would have to compromise and negotiate. But I think that, you know, that's the strength of diversity, is you test your ideas against the ideas of others. And it's not pretty. It's not supposed to be easy. It's supposed to be contentious. It's going to be emotional. But you keep having those conversations and you have those clashing of ideas and opinions, and you just keep trying to move the ball forward. And I think that despite all of our differences and all the diversity, no one has a monopoly on the truth. We all need each other. We all have things that we bring to the table, both on the left and the right, and we're all better off because of it. And I hope that people will continue to see that. And people have said, well, maybe you need some kind of external threat or something like that. And that's the only thing that will unite the country. I hope we can do it without that, that we can just see the advantages of working together. And I believe there's a lot of people of goodwill who want to do that. There's a lot of organizations now, a lot of podcasts, such as yours, a lot of books being published, which is just bringing these ideas forward and asking people, like, come on, we're better than this. We got to do better than this. And I hope ultimately, at the end of the day, that's going to break through.

David Beckmeyer (33:04)

Right. And we know, again, sort of from data, that there's a much larger group that kind of doesn't want it to be this way than does. And so, yeah, there's. There's.

Dr. Timothy Redmond (33:12)

That.

David Beckmeyer (33:12)

That has to, you know, that message has to get out there, and then it also has to become, you know, sort of action and turned into reality. Yeah, I love it. That's. That's very true. So you mentioned it a little bit before, and I know, you know, this is something that I think about, but after all the research and writing that you've done, has your view of the other side changed or how has it changed?

Dr. Timothy Redmond (33:33)

Oh, yeah, it surely has. I found myself to be much less partisan than I used to, and once I started to really think about this and back away and read about, as you were saying, like, the misperception literature that people have. And I found myself to have a lot of those misperceptions about the other side, what they believe and what they look like and everything. And, you know, you just start to, once you digest enough of that stuff, you start to realize, like, okay, I, I've been misled here and that's not good and I need to check this. And so I stopped kind of ingesting all of that hyper partisan stuff and, and also, you know, really making an effort to talk politics with colleagues who are on the other side of the aisle than I. And that's been really helpful because again, you're sort of breaking down these stereotypes and caricatures. And so I, yeah, I found myself reevaluating what I think about the other side, looking more at actual data than sort of these assumptions that I had. But, you know, I also really start to see my own side, like, making me upset and frustrating me and falling for all of this stuff. And I really, you know, I guess I've been saying my side and, you know, the opposite side, but I've really, I wouldn't, I wouldn't say, like, I'm a centrist or not. I mean, I have opinions, but I think my opinions are kind of all over the place and I'm willing to change them. I'm not, you know, incredibly attached to and I'm willing to be wrong about stuff. I think that's been a real change in myself where I don't think I ever recognized the warts on my own side. And I really started to do that. And I see this political tribalism affecting both sides, and I don't like it when I see it from either side and I can identify it quicker. I can start to identify it myself and I think I'm much better off for it. And I'm, you know, I'm glad I sort of taken this journey.

David Beckmeyer (36:17)

Yeah, it sounds very similar to the journey that I've been on. It's a lot easier to have influence with those that kind of see you as on your own side than folks that are. We always want to spend all our energy talking, you know, telling the folks on the other side what's wrong with them and they're not going to pay much attention to us.

Dr. Timothy Redmond (36:30)

Right.

David Beckmeyer (36:31)

Yeah. Well, Dr. Timothy Redmond, thank you so much for making time for our show.

Dr. Timothy Redmond (36:37)

Thank you so much for having me. I greatly appreciate it, David.

David Beckmeyer (36:50)

That is it for this episode of the Outrage Overload.

Co-host/Producer (36:53)

Podcast. For links to everything we talked about on this episode, go to outrage overload.net outrage overload is a Connors Institute podcast. The Connors Institute for Non Partisan Research and Civic Engagement at Shippensburg University works to disseminate high quality, nonpartisan information to the American public around issues of societal well being, democracy promotion, and news literacy. If you found this episode valuable, please

David Beckmeyer (37:17)

share it or leave a review. It really helps. Thanks for listening and I'll catch you next time.

Dr. Timothy Redmond (37:33)

Sam.