The perception of a deeply divided society is largely an artifact of a political system built on competition and elections, which forces people into two opposing camps. A system based on deliberation would reveal that most people's views are not so rigidly coherent, and it would encourage finding common ground rather than winning at all costs.
Related Insights
Despite the vitriol on social media and in political discourse, the actual social reality is not nearly as polarized. On fundamental issues like the fairness of gerrymandering or the need for a welfare system, there is massive agreement between Democrats and Republicans. Political actors and media amplify conflict, creating a participatory 'cosplay' of division that obscures vast common ground.
Cable news and social media don't show the average person who votes differently. They blast the loudest, most cartoonish "professional lunatics" from the opposing side. This creates a false impression that the entire opposition is extreme, making tribalism seem rational.
A savvy political strategy involves forcing opponents to publicly address the most extreme statements from their ideological allies. This creates an impossible purity test. No answer is good enough for the fringe, and any attempt to placate them alienates the mainstream, effectively creating a schism that benefits the opposing party.
In stark contrast to adversarial US and UK politics, Swiss political debates center on a competition to see which politician can better stake out and represent the consensus middle ground, taking into account the validity of both sides of an issue.
Political parties now adopt positions primarily to oppose their rivals, rather than from consistent principles. This is seen in the multiple reversals on COVID-19 policies and vaccines. When beliefs flip-flop based on the opponent's stance, the driving force is tribalism, not ideology.
America's governing system was intentionally designed for messy debate among multiple factions. This constant disagreement is not a flaw but a feature that prevents any single group from gaining absolute power. This principle applies to organizations: fostering dissent and requiring compromise leads to more resilient and balanced outcomes.
As the general public tunes out of daily politics, the remaining participants are the most extreme, creating an "evaporative cooling" effect. This leaves a small, hyper-engaged, and radicalized group to dominate political platforms, distorting the perception of public sentiment.
Most people (88%) agree on fundamental values but remain silent, fearing ostracization. This allows the most extreme 5% of voices to dominate 90% of public discourse, creating a false impression of widespread disagreement and polarization where one doesn't exist.
People look at the same set of facts (stars) but interpret them through different frameworks, creating entirely different narratives (constellations). These narratives, though artificial, have real-world utility for navigation and decision-making, explaining why people reach opposing conclusions from the same data.
Public goods are either "competitive" (schools, roads), suitable for electoral debate, or "unitary" (redistricting, judicial appointments), requiring non-partisan consensus. Applying competitive electoral logic corrupts unitary goods. Representation by sampling, like a jury, is the appropriate, unbiased mechanism to govern these essential functions that underpin the rules of the game.