Why We're Polarized

One of Klein’s key themes is that it is not polarization itself but the consequences of polarization in the US system of governance that create a crisis. The US political system is somewhat unique, with major party nominees selected in primaries and an 18th-century Constitution that separates institutional powers and has multiple safeguards against tyranny of the majority. Historically, the political parties navigated this system via informal norms of cooperation. With the parties polarized in the 21st century, Klein argues that there are grounds to worry about the functionality and legitimacy of the governmental system.

Because nominees from the major parties are selected in primaries, voters who care the most about politics turn out. While primary participation is low, those who do participate tend to be the most conservative in the Republican Party and most liberal in the Democratic Party. It is therefore likely that they will be inclined to select divisive candidates. Klein highlights why this method of selection is problematic at the Congressional level: Those candidates in “safe” seats, with lopsided majorities, have no fear of losing to the other party. Instead, they are afraid of a primary challenge within their party if they compromise with the other. As a result, they are disincentivized to work with the other party to make Congress functional.

The system established within the Constitution depends on cooperation and has been described as a system of separate institutions that share powers. Because the legislature and executive are chosen separately by distinct constituencies, it is possible that a different party will be in control of each. In that case, the leaders must work together. Instead, the age of polarization has created a politics of brinksmanship. Klein cites the Republicans holding the debt ceiling hostage and notes the financial disaster that would ensue if the government did not meet its debts. Government shutdowns are also a threat with polarization. More routinely, however, popular bills fail to pass. Historically, the American political system has tended to have one party dominant for periods of time, providing an incentive to the minority party in Congress to cooperate with the majority, as it was the only means of gaining some influence. With the parties fairly evenly divided in the 21st century, the minority party seeks to displace the majority party and therefore has no incentive to cooperate. Without such cooperation, the system is challenged to function properly.

The Constitution and political system arm the numerical minority with tools to frustrate the majority’s will. For example, a bicameral legislature requires all bills to be approved by both the House and the Senate. Representing each state equally, the Senate significantly overrepresents rural areas, which lean Republican. In addition, the filibuster allows the minority party in the Senate to derail the majority’s agenda. The electoral college further reflects the bias toward land representation instead of people, a fact that has caused discrepancies between that vote and the popular vote twice since 2000. Given that the parties are split along geographic lines, the Republicans, who are strong in rural areas, have an advantage. That party has a primarily white and Christian coalition. As this gap in representation grows to the Republicans’ advantage, Klein worries that it could lead to a legitimacy crisis.

Partisan identity has merged with other powerful identities, such as race, religion, geography, and culture. As a result, for many voters, voting has become a form of self-expression, rather than a deliberative choice based on the character of candidates or strengths of the policies they propose. Klein argues that this dynamic is not only new—stemming from the increase in polarization—but also poses threats to the health of democracy in the US.

Citing social psychology research demonstrating the hostility that members of ingroups feel toward outsiders, Klein explains how such feelings have exploded around partisanship given its alignment with other identities. Since party now stands in for race, religion, and one’s home, it is constantly activated as an identity. A threat to one of these identities, therefore, is a threat to all. Given the changing demographics in the US and the media’s coverage of politicians who stoke outrage, such threats are perceived frequently, sparking hostile feelings toward the other party. Candidates are demonized as criminals, as Donald Trump suggested of Hillary Clinton, or as out to get the other party. In such a system, it becomes almost inconceivable to support a candidate from the other party. Those who cross such lines pay a high price. Klein cites the example of David Brooks, a conservative journalist and commentator who condemned Trump publicly and was ostracized from his social circle. If voting is a reflexive expression of identity, then reason is taken out of the equation. Voters are not weighing policy proposals or their interests; they are voting instead on the basis of emotional attachment. As a result, Klein argues, they will support any candidate with the correct partisan label, even one who is a demagogue or threatens democracy and the rule of law.

As a political journalist, Klein seeks to inform voters and thereby empower them to make choices in their interests. Research shows, however, that exposure to factual information and the arguments of the other party do not persuade partisans. Instead, it entrenches them in their own positions, a concept known as “identity-protective cognition.” Klein explains that partisans act as “press secretaries” who defend the position of their party no matter what. This dynamic plays out in the media as well, wherein public relations take precedence over political journalism. Fundamentally, according to Klein, partisans are not interested in debating, listening to others, or discovering the truth: They want to win the argument and defeat their partisan enemy. This lack of deliberation presents a threat to democracy because there is no search for a common good or even for a viable compromise since compromise is considered a betrayal of party principles. Democracy requires that citizens respect one another to some degree, so it becomes fragile when one party considers those outside of it enemies.