Liberty Expose: Polarization: Hurdles Conservatives Can Help With
Klaus Vedfelt
Finding Our Braver Angels
In a recent online forum, a liberal-leaning participant of Braver Angels (an organization committed to ameliorating political polarization through dialogue, debates, and workshops) expressed interest in finding a conservative counterpart to balance out a weekly discussion group. The post opens with a sentiment that many of us across the country and political spectrum share:
“Seeking Political Conservative. I am very concerned that our country has become so polarized politically and culturally. As I’m sure you have observed, many people can’t even communicate with those they see as being across the divide. I believe our country can’t flourish if we can’t listen to each other.”
I myself would have welcomed the opportunity to join such a group. From the rest of the post, it becomes clear that this participant welcomes open dialogue with the clear aim of finding ways to heal political polarization. Yet the discussion that follows among other newcomers to the discussion speaks to some of the hurdles facing our public dialogue. Here are a couple telling moments from the thread that ensues:
1) “Finding a Republican in X is like finding a unicorn…the mainstream Democratic party today is a center-right/moderate Republican group so if you can find a true ‘vote blue no matter who’ type of person, they may actually fit the definition of ‘conservative’”
2) “I own a duplex in X and I’m for higher taxes, UBI, and expanded access to Medicare (or single-payer healthcare). Basically, I’m pretty far left by national standards. But I do think the government should mostly stay out of regulating markets. The way to make everyone better off is to let markets function efficiently and then redistribute[d] income on the back end with progressive taxation...and increased entitlements.”
Rebuttal from someone else: “Sorry you have to keep up with the laws and regulations in your industry (just like everyone else).”
It’s worth mentioning at the outset that online exchanges tend to exacerbate the polarizing dynamics already present in any given culture. Online discussions suffer from an unfortunate combination of anonymity, impulsivity, and ambiguity that impedes productive conversation even in the healthiest of circumstances. We expect sub-par dialogue in these spaces because the digital text in a discussion format has the perceptual effect of shielding the writer from view in a seemingly impersonal space (thereby emboldening them to make harsher claims) while somehow leaving the reader disproportionately vulnerable in a personal way (with the interlocutor’s written statements coming across as much more judgmental and accusatory than they would in a live environment). During ordinary exchanges in person, mismatches of this sort have a better chance of getting worked out through the immediacy of one another’s humanity and the fluidity of spontaneous exchange, but when suspended in an otherworldly digital vacuum, it becomes all too easy to perceive claims as personal attacks while simultaneously projecting motives onto others.
However, there are some deeper issues that even the digital realm cannot account for. For example, the first excerpt highlights the basic problem a polarized culture faces when trying to map out the camps in question. The writer correctly perceives that a shift has occurred in American politics and that this has obscured the identity of both the right and the left. In consequence, we’re left with the cumbersome problem of trying to define a group while simultaneously identifying its members.
The rebuttal in number 2) takes matters a step further by engaging in motive projection (when one person cuts off conversational flow by assuming something about another’s motives). Aside from marking an unfortunate breach in decorum, the rebuttal fails to grasp the nuance in the interlocutor’s argument, opting instead for an ad hominem jab that reduces the argument to a claim about motives (e.g. “You just want to avoid having to answer to laws and regulations”). It also fails to recognize the opportunity presented by a fellow citizen with seemingly unorthodox views (being “far-left by national standards,” while skeptical of government regulation of markets).
I cite these examples because they accent some of the challenges now facing American politics. In addition to dysfunction in the mechanics of our democracy (e.g. Senate malapportionment, gerrymandering, the filibuster, and voter suppression) we have to contend with the fact that we may not have an adequate map of where we stand in relation to others. On the one hand, polarities rooted in discernible differences in interest (e.g. class differences) may be intense, but they at least benefit from the clarity that comes from having distinct programmatic visions. In situations like this (which are usually marked by a workable national consensus that spans moderates in both parties), enemies become beloved enemies because each group knows where the other actually stands.
On the other hand, negotiating underlying differences that are themselves obscured by party identification will require much more soul-searching because they emerge out of a general crisis of identity in our society. We must recognize that what underlies much of our country’s polarization is the primal need to belong to distinct groups that harness a sense of responsibility while broadening the channels of social solidarity. As family and religious structure diminish, we tend to channel this desire for belonging into the political realm, which increases its tribal vehemence and diminishes the ability to mentalize members of other groups. Thus, the task of ameliorating polarization goes hand in hand with the task of helping Americans regain their self-possession in a rapidly changing world.
Furthermore, these examples remind us that despite the persistence of political polarities, political realities are not fixed. Polarization merely signifies the breakdown of an order that is no longer flexible enough to coordinate the interests of the day: it is the painful renunciation that precedes the process of reclamation. In the midst of a breakdown, new coalitions and visions can emerge to better capture the genius of the American people. As fellows inhabiting a polarized culture, we should recognize this fluidity and prioritize the task of reforming our coalitions and ideals for a new era of the American republic.
No single party or interest group can accomplish this reformation alone. Both the left and the right must undergo internal reorientation while simultaneously making investments in the long-term vitality of our democratic culture. With this in mind, I’ll offer some ways in which conservatives can contribute to this enterprise while also undergoing its own process of inner reform.
Hurdles That Conservatives Can Help With
If, as Steve McIntosh argues, American politics is to evolve from a “stuck polarity” (where left and right persistent in stagnant gridlock) to a “generative polarity” (where left and right creatively challenge one another and incorporate each other’s wisdom), then each side must evolve itself internally. Neither the right nor the left will be in a position to acknowledge the value of their beloved adversary until they have evolved their own internal values and achieved a clearer understanding of themselves.
Evolution on the conservative side faces a number of difficult problems. According to McIntosh, the conservative coalition contains tensions of its own between the “liberty value complex” and the “heritage value complex,” each of which requires “ongoing refinement and management” to remain positive and avoid deviation into pathological forms. When healthy, the liberty complex champions the rights of the individual, free markets, and self-reliance, but when pathological, can disintegrate into indifferent elitism and selfish exploitation. Likewise, the heritage complex does well when it champions patriotic love, affirms a national interest, and safeguards the continuity of wisdom traditions and family values; but when deviant, it can become susceptible to authoritarian, nativist, racist, and anti-scientific modes of thinking.
Steve McIntosh, “Chart of the value polarity within the American right”
On the heritage side, conservatives must own the apparent sultanism in the Republican Party, the rise of authoritarian thinking in much of its base, and the persistence of ethnic antagonism as a major predictor of Republican identification. These issues proceed from a combination of unresponsive government and the palpable feeling of diminished agency in an increasingly dislocated economic order. Politically speaking, they require the intervention of conservative leaders who are committed to the needs of working and middle-class families and willing to articulate those concerns through the lens of an energetic nationalist vision.
On the liberty side, conservatives must accept the fact that the laissez-faire agenda of the Republican Party has granted too much leeway for private interests to damage the environment, exacerbate inequality, and exclude workers from gains in national income. Moreover, through a misleading conflation of conservative (Jeffersonian) liberty and libertarian “freedom of contract,” this laissez-faire agenda has often misdirected its constituencies’ noble desire for independent self-reliance into an anti-social denial of communal responsibility. We can see this in resistance to community efforts to curb the spread of COVID-19 (e.g. mask mandates), which many view as “liberal” threats to their liberty.
The only way for the right to integrate both its liberty and heritage values into a coherent political ethos is to combat its debilitating allegiance to laissez-faire and small government (which really only serves elite interests) by forwarding a compelling national vision that puts democracy at the center of its enterprise. This means divesting itself of its idolization of the free market and affirming policies that restore faith in the power of collective action through government. This is necessary as a practical matter because conservatives will only continue to diminish their own freedom if they constantly seek to undermine the very instrument that could help them gain leverage on their life circumstances.
In addition to mitigating the fallout of laissez-faire, a strong national vision committed to democratic vitality is necessary to channel the natural impulse to a distinct national identity. By replacing the old nativist constructions with the felt unity of collective agency, we would land on a principle of unity sufficiently flexible for the increasingly diverse American landscape. Only then would it become possible for working and middle-class Americans of all backgrounds to recognize their common interest in the preservation of fair democratic order committed to equality of opportunity.
So how can we apply these lessons to our own interactions with one another? How should conservatives approach dialogue with non-conservatives and vice versa?
For conservatives, the fundamental lesson comes down to transcending its anti-statism and recognizing the legitimacy of liberal calls for a bolder government agency. This means going beyond merely dismissing proposals as “socialist” and acknowledging the legitimacy of progressive experimentalism: both as a necessary force for any democratic society and an honorable tradition as fundamentally American as the cause of freedom. Conservatives must also come to a clearer understanding of the meaning of freedom in the context of the 21st century and recognize that the liberty espoused by the GOP is antithetical to mainstream American values and the needs of most Americans. Finally, they must seek out opportunities to build coalitions with other Americans, particularly around issues concerning the family, democracy reform, and the nation’s competitive future.
Like conservatives, liberals and progressives must also undergo a process of internal reform before they are able to fully manifest their potential in the 21st century, and this topic would require a piece in its own right to map out. That being said, there are a few suggestions they should keep in mind when dialoguing with conservatives. First, they should acknowledge the legitimacy in conservative calls for a strong national identity that inspires reverence and patriotic connection. Just as conservatives need to acknowledge that not every government initiative is socialist, liberals and progressives need to recognize that not every national movement is authoritarian, and moreover, that the accomplishment of their ends will require the galvanizing energy of a national movement that affirms the best of our heritage.
Furthermore, liberals and progressives should emphasize that a strong national project goes hand in hand with a functional federal government and the cause of democratic reform, and make every possible effort to link those priorities to the cause of freedom. For most conservatives, appeals to humanitarianism and equity will prove an insufficient basis for expanding the scope of government action. What they need to hear about is how a new proposal will expand the individual’s felt sense of freedom and strengthen their self-reliance.
Lastly, liberals should avoid automatically discounting conservative appeals to “small c” conservative values like self-responsibility, duty, and the belief that there is a meaningful relationship between effort and reward. These are enduring values that any democratic society should integrate into its political reflection and culture—not outdated vestiges from an old order.