Thomas Zimmer (2:50)

Once the polarization concept is adopted as sort of an overarching diagnosis. Right. As a sort of a governing paradigm, I think we all feel that it obscures rather than it illuminates the actual problems, and it transports a misleading idea of what's actually up in America and what the actual threat to democracy is.

Podcast Host (3:10)

Now, I want to say right away that there are a lot of generalizations in what you just heard. I think the great irony of this particular is this Democracy episode about how polarization is not the problem itself has elements verging on outrage porn. It does have some interesting facts and valid points about the right, but it also makes some sweeping generalizations and uses a lot of highly charged language, presenting issues with an us versus them dynamic, all of which feed the very division and hate that it's asking us not to talk about. All that said, the reason why we're looking at this is because it speaks to some of the concerns that I had about this show during its conceptualization, as well as some feedback I've heard from listeners. I got a chance to speak with one of the researchers whose work inspired this particular Is this Democracy podcast episode.

Shannon McGregor (3:55)

Hi, I'm Shannon McGregor. I'm an associate professor at the University of North Carolina in the Hussman School of Journalism and Media, and I'm also a principal investigator with UNC center for Information Technology and Public Life.

Podcast Host (4:09)

When it comes to polarization, it's not the only thing we talk about on this podcast, but it does come up particularly affective polarization. We have referred to this term a lot on this podcast, but if you're new or need a refresher, here's Lilliana Mason describing affective polarization.

Lilliana Mason (4:24)

So now we don't just hate people in the other party because we disagree on the marginal tax rate. We hate them because they are different from us in so many ways. And that's social, that's affective, that's cultural. That's all right. We're. They are different from us in all these ways. And we feel that really viscerally. It's not just that we disagree that we feel really like those people are not like me. And, and we shouldn't even be necessarily, you know, in the same country, right? This is. They shouldn't count as Americans as much as my people count as Americans. Ultimately. What you do then is if you have, let's say, for example, racial identities connected to your partisan identity, you're going into the voting booth and you're actually voting not just on which party you think is best, but which racial group you think is best, which is a terrible idea. We should not be voting who gets, you know, who's the best racial group in our country. That's. That is a recipe for disaster, if not genocide. So like, that's a, that's a very bad way to do politics, but it does explain how we are currently doing politics.

Podcast Host (5:17)

Regarding the claim that the real problem is a radicalizing right. I think that's just as flawed as claiming that polarization is the sole or main problem, which is not something we intend to do on this show, by the way. Both are over simplistic views. To that point, I asked McGregor if I'm part of the problem.

Shannon McGregor (5:34)

I mean, I think the short answer is no, right? I don't think. Yeah, I think, you know what, my colleague Daniel Krise and I, who wrote the piece that sort of motivated that conversation on the podcast that you mentioned earlier. The point that we were trying to make and what we've been thinking about is not that polarization isn't a problem and in some cases shouldn't be the very thing maybe, perhaps we are focusing on. But far too often it obscures what we see as the real problem, which is the, you know, extremity and yeah, I guess the extremity of a political right, at least in this country right now. And I think we see that same thing in a lot of other countries around the world, that the political right going very far to the right. And when we talk about it as polarization instead of, you know, we get this visual of two poles, right? And when we talk about solving polarization, I think the sort of natural heuristic is like that both that like to solve it, both sides should just keep moving until we're in a place where they aren't, you know, nearly as far apart. But if we're sort of centering questions of democratic ideals in terms of equity, equality, things like that, then I don't think both sides moving to the center is what's going to get us there. And so then that shouldn't be the how we frame the problem. In a lot cases, it's important to

Podcast Host (7:04)

recognize that the challenges facing American democracy today are multifaceted and cannot be attributed solely to one party or one ideology. At the same time, we must acknowledge that there are unique dynamics within the Republican Party that have raised concerns about the preservation of democratic norms. Here's political scientist Kevin Smith.

Kevin Smith (7:23)

Yeah, I mean, I don't think we want to be Pollyannish about some of the dangers about the political divides here. I mean, you know, the, you know, the January 6th riots were. That was a serious thing. I mean, Congress was engaged in certifying an election and a mob basically, you know, took over that took over the capital. I don't think you need to minimize that. But I also don't think that it's particularly helpful in terms of moving to any corrective by using pejorative language and sort of like, you know, painting out A set of people and saying they are the problem. And if we could just, you know, take this group of people by the scruff of the necks and shake them the right philosophical way, our problems would be solved. I mean, I just think that's A, it's unrealistic and B, I think it's. It's too simplistic. You know, unfortunately, the world is a multivariate and complicated place. And, you know, some people. Yeah, I mean, there are some people on the reactionary right. There is such a thing as a reactionary right that are contemplating things that would cross most people's red lines. You know, there's also a lot of conservatives who have principled, legitimate reasons for being upset about certain directions in the country and are not shy about voicing those opinions and lumping one in with the other. You know, especially if you're using pejorative language, I don't think that helps build any bridges whatsoever.

Podcast Host (9:08)

That brings me to something else I'm always mindful about on this show, which is not falling into both sides fallacies. I spoke with McGregor about this. Yeah, I struggle with that kind of idea on the show. A lot of sort of like dealing with sort of the confronting head on sort of the both sides ism kind of thing. Right. I generally. The podcast is more meta and I generally don't really take positions on issues. It's more meta kind of about how we talk about these issues and stuff like that. But I mean, there's times when you kind of have to take a position, you know, and that. That also even in doing this, that there's, as you say, the sort of the weight, you know, the two. There may be similarities in terms of sort of the animosity, but they're not exactly. They can't be equated in the same degree. And that's a tough one to. That's a tough one to deal with as well.

Shannon McGregor (9:57)

Yeah, I think so. And I think, you know, that was one of the main motivations that we had for writing this piece and thinking about this was that there seemed to be very little in most of the, especially like, academic work around this consideration of the issues and of the analysis of, like, power, you know, in some of these situations. And I think that especially when we're talking about this in the space of politics, to talk about it in that vacuum, always. Right. Without thinking about the actual, like, outcomes and issues can be really problematic. And I think a lot of the work that we were trying to understand that didn't do that. That's just like one of the sort of problems that we were seeing that we thought hopefully could be thought about a little bit more deeply in some cases.

Podcast Host (10:56)

One of the common calls to action we hear on this show for lowering the temperature are things like civil dialogue. Sometimes that feels inadequate because then when

Shannon McGregor (11:04)

you come to that, you get these solutions like, well, if we could just have people across the political aisle speak to one another, then we'll be fine. Because then people maybe would move to the center. I find that idea, frankly, like morally bankrupt. I'm not going to ask someone, you know, it's your job, dear trans person, to speak to someone who would deny your existence and deny your right to live in this country. But if you just talk to them, then maybe we can come closer to the poll. Right. Because that, you know, without defining the center of what groups should move towards, then you just suggest that they should move towards one another. And that has no normative democratic basis.

Podcast Host (11:49)

I very much agree with this. And it's another point I want to make first on this show. We're not putting some kind of centrist position on a pedestal as a goal to strive for. We're certainly not suggesting everyone should move to the center.

Kevin Smith (12:01)

You know, two of my favorite students over the past decade of my teaching, one was a very conservative Christian, conservative Republican, and one was, you know, about three steps away from a socialist, wanted to work for the ACLU after she graduated. And the reason why they were two of my favorite students is they were genuinely curious about why people thought differently from them and they were not judgmental about, you know, students in the class who had very, very different opinions from them. And I loved having them in, in class because, you know, all you need is a couple of people like that in a room, effectively grown ups in the room, even if they have very strong political views from one end of the spectrum or the other, is it's amazing how much reasonableness can break out. I mean, like moderation of language, moderation in your, you know, your emotional opposition to the people that you disagree with. I mean, I think you can be the two students that I was just referring to, they were nobody's ideas of centrist. Absolutely, absolutely not.

Podcast Host (13:17)

Also, even though we promote things like civil dialogue, we need to be realistic that it can't solve all our problems.

Shannon McGregor (13:24)

The idea that if people could speak to one another, things would be better. Like on a small scale. Yes. Right. Like, yes. Like you could be, you know, better in your community or your workplace. Right. Like maybe those really hard conversations could promote more social cohesions. At this very low level. And that might, you know, move us further away from polarization and maybe even more towards democracy by understanding the human and civil rights of people who are different than you. But there's no incentive for elites to engage in that at all. And so in some ways, I think it's a fool's errand to try and convince the public that it's their problem to solve when all of the conversations in the world across the sort of aisle at a diner table are never going to fix the political structures that incentivize us staying this polarized.

Podcast Host (14:16)

While I agree here that there is very little incentive today for elites to engage in civil discourse or for attempting to understand their political adversaries, I do put that on us to a degree we like when they attack the other side, we encourage it. We vote for those that engage in that behavior on the left and the right. So what do we expect? To say it's all our fault is wrong, but to say we have no responsibility here is also wrong. Here's Shannon McGregor again, regarding disagreeing Better.

Shannon McGregor (14:45)

Yeah, and I think, you know, that's one of the things that I think is really important, but one of the things that I actually think the polarization lens on this obscures, right, which is the fact that without a doubt, democracy works when people can disagree better, when they can have discussions about the implications of different policies or issues and then be able to take that to the ballot box or take it to the floor of Congress or whatever this sort of mechanism is in any particular case. Peace. But right now, we have a large share of the Republican Party, both at the elected level, but also at the level of the populace of people who are not playing by those rules, that are not accepting the political outcome of defeats, that are not accepting at all the, not even the views of people who might disagree with them, but sort of the premise for doing so at all. And I think that is a real crisis, right, that we have in our, in our democracy right now is that, you know, it doesn't seem as if we're all playing by the same rules. And that's sort of the foundational premise of all of this, right? Is that we agree with this system and we're going to work within the bounds of it, right, to try and advance our own agendas or whatever it is that we care about. And that's like, not really where we are right now. And that's what I think is really worrisome and that I'm not sure the polarization lens accurately describes for the purposes

Podcast Host (16:34)

of clearing up legitimate concerns about our show, I want to spell it out here first. We are not saying that polarization is the single overarching diagnosis to our problems. I accept that the concept of polarization has its limitations in capturing the complexities of the current political landscape. And it is true that the term polarization can sometimes imply a false equivalence between the two major political parties, obscuring the significant differences in their approaches and goals. However, it is important to recognize that the challenges facing American democracy today are multifaceted and cannot be attributed to any one thing alone. Likewise, we aren't suggesting one must give up their principles and come to a center position on all issues. While we may fiercely defend our principles, that doesn't mean we have to demonize opposing viewpoints. There's space for unwavering beliefs and unwavering respect, for red lines drawn with understanding instead of animosity. There's, of course, even a place for outrage. Here's neuroscientist Kurt Gray.

Kurt Gray (17:30)

There are cases where it is, you know, really good. So if there's a company that is polluting something, I'm thinking like Aaron Brockovich, right. And everyone gets together and gets angry. Or the. The sex scandal in the Catholic Church. Right. Lots of people were really upset and pushed for kind of systemic change as much as they could. So outrage could be a tool for good and for social change. But of course, it can also be right. You can get an overload of it as well. Right. Too much outrage, kind of poison conversations, makes us further upset. Just everyone's kind of screaming all the time. And so I think it's a good tool for coordination. But sometimes when. When it's not useful, then just bathing in social or moral outrage can, you know, make us upset eventually maybe make us physically ill. You know, we know that stress does all sorts of bad things to us when we're chronically exposed to it. So in the long run, I think be bad news when it comes to

Podcast Host (18:33)

fostering dialogue and collaboration and promoting civic education and engagement. I appreciate that it only goes so far and cannot solve all our problems alone. On the other hand, it is crucial to foster a more inclusive and constructive political environment that transcends partisan divides. Lowering the temperature can also help us individually a great deal. It helps make us more critical thinkers and therefore better citizens. And it improves our mental health. And in so doing, we can better focus our outrage into effective action. Finally, efforts to strengthen democratic institutions and safeguard the rule of law are essential. In addition to promoting a culture of civic engagement. This could involve implementing comprehensive campaign finance reform, ranked choice voting, lobbying reform, and strengthening whistleblower protections. I spoke with MacGregor about another important problem. Trust in institutions.

Shannon McGregor (19:23)

Yeah, I mean, you know, trust in institutions, the government, journalism, science and academia, doctors, right? Everything has been on a decline across the political spectrum in terms of the public for quite some time. But I think that part of the ramping up that we've seen recently is really tied into. The sort of populist playbook that I think a lot of politicians, mostly on the right, but I would say not only on the right, have. Have been using to their advantage. Right? Which is this idea that you can't trust big government or big media. Right. Or all these other things, all these other institutions that. That we're talking about in this conversation. But you can trust me, right? Like, I have the answer, right? And it's this very sort of populous rhetoric. And, you know, people are. People are buying into that because things are hard and things are confusing. And it does seem to be a much nicer and easier answer that I can just believe someone who tells me that they're going to be able to fix it rather than go through the messy, complicated process of, like, voting.

Lilliana Mason (20:42)

Right.

Shannon McGregor (20:42)

Like voting for people or like, dealing with the uncertainty that we have around some health and science things. Right. All that can be messy and complicated and easy answers that people, you know, leaders who are in this sort of populist mold give can be much more appealing, and it benefits them to tell that story. Right? For someone in that vein to say, don't trust the institutions. Trust me. Give me your power. Even though I'm running to be a part of some institutional body, by the way, right. Like Congress or the presidency or the state legislature.

Podcast Host (21:15)

As we look to close out this episode once again, we're left with more questions than answers. Perhaps that's as it should be. When it comes to the discourse surrounding American democracy, there are no easy solutions, no definitive narratives. Our role at this show isn't to provide all the answers, but to illuminate the questions and to offer a platform for diverse voices. It's about sparking critical thinking, igniting a fire of informed discussions, and empowering you to take action. Go forth armed with these nuanced perspectives, and engage in dialogue with your neighbors, your family, your community. Be critical of those on your own side. If a story or a tweet feels good, it makes you feel morally superior. That's a good indication that maybe you're not getting the whole story. Maybe take a step back if you find a source that is often giving you an oversimplified version of a story, or pumping out feel good spins on rumors that seldom pan out. You don't have to call them out, but maybe consider finding better sources or keeping that in mind when you consume their content. In other words, inoculate yourself a little to their rage. Porn reporting tendencies. Let's give Shannon McGregor the last word.

Shannon McGregor (22:20)

I don't have all the answers for how to get that information to the folks who I think need it, but I do think one of the important things that I feel like I've learned both through my own research and other people's research, you know, in this area in the last decade or so is that like, it's not about truth. It's not about the truth. I mean, I care. I'm not saying we shouldn't care about truth, but like reiterating that something is true or fact checking things, it's important. We have to do it. But that's not what these beliefs are about, you know, that's not what these attitudes are about. They're about identity, they're about power, you know, and they're about belonging. And until we can really integrate that into how we think about these things, I don't think we're going to be able to solve this.

Podcast Host (23:22)

That is it for this episode of the Outrage Outrage Overload podcast. For links to everything we talked about on this episode, go to outrage overload.net Our focus for 2024 is to make the best show possible to add the most value to you, our listeners. And the best way we can keep improving on that is to hear from you. What do you like to see? What do you want to see? What would make this show more valuable for you? You can give us that feedback@outrageoverloadmail.com or if you're worried about hurting my feelings, you can go directly to outrageoverload.net survey and give those comments anonymously. So thanks again for listening and look for a new episode in a couple of weeks.