Bi-Weekly Discussion - Can We Depolarize Politics?

This is going to be an online meetup using Zoom. If you've never used Zoom before, don't worry — it's easy to use and free to join.

Here's the link to the event: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84220403766?pwd=a1pXQ296TnRtaGFrKzl6dFhNZEVwZz09

Meeting ID: 842 2040 3766
Passcode: 871588

WHAT'S CAUSING AMERICA'S POLITICAL POLARIZATION - AND CAN WE REVERSE IT?

INTRODUCTION:

I often see articles right before the holidays suggesting tactics for navigating potentially heated political discussions with the extended family & in-laws around the dinner table. I figured this would be a good time to discuss political polarization, what causes it, and some possible ways to de-polarize American politics. Along the way, we'll consider some advice on how to maintain civility if & when you end up in a conversation about politics with someone you disagree with.

Before we start, we need to define political polarization. Wikipedia has a pretty decent entry which defines polarization as "divergence of political attitudes to ideological extremes" and which distinguishes between 4 types of polarization:
(1) "Elite Polarization", or polarization among politicians;
(2) "Mass Polarization", or polarization among voters;
(3) "Pernicious Polarization", which can mean extreme ideological polarization that prevents compromise but can also indicate high "affective polarization" - i.e. distrust & hatred of the other party;
(4) "Beneficial Polarization", which tends to mean moderate ideological polarization that enables voters to know what policies each party supports but doesn't entail high levels of mutual distrust or prohibit bipartisan compromises.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_polarization

As you can see from my outline, I've broken this topic down into 4 sections. In Part 1, we'll discuss the causes of voter polarization. In Part 2, we'll discuss the causes of party polarization. In Part 3, we'll discuss the possible solutions to voter polarization. In Part 4, we'll discuss the possible solutions to party polarization.

RELEVANT MATERIAL FROM PAST MEETUPS:

In Dec. 2020, we had a meetup entitled "Thinking About The Holidays" and in the 4th section we looked at advice from psychologists & family counselors about how to have civil discussions about politics over the holidays.
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/pbplbsybcqbrb/

Back in Mar. 2018, we had a meetup entitled "What Can We Learn From the 2016 Election?" In Part 2, we discussed the effects of political polarization & the way in which many journalists blame gerrymandering. Political scientists doubt this explanation because the Senate just as polarized as the House, even though each state gets 2 senators and gerrymandered districts don't sway their elections.
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/xvbrznyxfbgb/

In Aug. 2017, the Skeptics meetup looked at research on how exposure to new information can change people's minds to see if the "marketplace of ideas" concept can be empirically verified, both in terms of getting people to adopt new scientific theories & getting people to develop more empathy for their out-groups. In the 1st section of the outline, we discussed how cognitive dissonance can lead to a backfire effect in some cases, but research by the political scientists Brendan Nyhan & Jason Reifer suggest that in most cases people "heed factual information, even when such information challenges their partisan & ideological commitments". In the 2nd section, we discussed research into how different forms of activism can create more empathy for minority groups, particularly in terms of shifting people's views on same-sex marriage. In general, the research appears to indicate that in-person canvassing that uses rapport-building can work, but shaming people for their beliefs is liable to backfire.
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/240812126/

Back in Feb. 2018, we had a meetup on the major points of consensus within political science. One of those points that most political scientists agree upon (addressed in the 2nd section of the discussion outline) is that elections tend to be determined by "the fundamentals" (i.e. how the economy is doing, whether the country is at war, and how long the incumbent party has been in power) and that campaign ads, debates & speeches have an indiscernible (and possibly negligible) effect.
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/xvbrznyxdbxb/

In Nov. 2017, we had a meetup on climate change, and the 1st section of the discussion outline looked at how "cultural cognition" tends to lead liberals & conservatives to become MORE polarized in their beliefs about climate change the more they learned about the issue. This suggests that once scientific issues like climate change take on partisan meanings, merely providing the public with more information is unlikely to lead to wider belief.
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/zgmddnywnbmc/