Reducing Political Polarization in USA Democracy Is Possible

In the past few weeks, two ever-divisive issues in U.S. politics have once again reared their heads: abortion and gun control.

Debates about the former were sparked in early May by a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion indicating that a majority of the court’s justices are in favor of overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that protects a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion without excessive government interference. Activists in favor of protecting the right to abortion, as well as those opposed, promptly took to the streets and digital platforms to advocate for their point of view—and condemn the other side’s.

Meanwhile, disputes over U.S. gun-ownership laws flared up once again last week in the immediate aftermath of the horrific shooting at a primary school in Uvalde, Texas, in which 19 young children and two adults were killed by a lone, 18-year-old gunman. Reactions in the days since then have been bitterly divided. On one hand, U.S. President Joe Biden urged citizens to “stand up to the [gun] lobbies,” while on the other, the CEO of the National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre, warned members of his organization ahead of their annual gathering on Friday that “the enemies of freedom are real.”

There have been 27 school shootings in the U.S. this year alone. All of these incidents have not only been deeply tragic—they have also exacerbated political and social cleavages. And the same is true of debates about abortion. Every time the issue takes over headlines, it appears to divide Americans even further.

These are troubling trends. Polarization serves no one, whether on the left or right. It broadens social divisions and engenders political gridlock, both of which can have impacts that last for generations. And, as I discussed in an earlier article about the potential long-term effects of the economic and humanitarian crises in Sri Lanka, political disputes fuel short-term thinking. Polarization keeps people from rising above their tendency to focus on the everyday and the personal, and from embracing the need for a farsighted and global mindset.

Given, then, the destructive and inhibiting nature of polarization, is there anything that we can do about it? Ironically, the answer to this question is also fiercely debated.

Some observers argue that polarization is an innate human quality that is further exacerbated by the way we consume information in today’s world. As a result, they argue, there is nothing that can be done to address it.

Take, for example, Jonathan Haidt, a renowned U.S. social psychologist whose book, “The Righteous Mind,” can frequently be found on university reading lists. Haidt’s principal argument is that human beings are intuitive, not rational: We act first and reason second. This means our judgments about politics are based not on facts, but on our moral intuition, which is largely shaped by our socio-economic surroundings. The other key point that Haidt makes is that humans are hive-minded: We have evolved to be tribal about everything from sports to politics. This tribalism “binds” people to individuals within their groups, but also “blinds” them to the moral perspectives of those outside it. It is these innate qualities, Haidt argues, that make political disagreements so intractable.

There is ample evidence suggesting that while political polarization is somewhat innate, it is neither inevitable nor incurable.

David McRaney, a science journalist who runs a podcast called, “You Are Not So Smart,” has further argued that the way we get our news—increasingly through social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter—is heightening polarization. Since all of our newsfeeds are tailored to suit our interests and opinions, we can find easily ourselves trapped in an echo chamber, in which the conviction that we are right and “they” are wrong is strengthened every day. Thus, to some, polarization is inevitable and incurable.

Others, however, are less pessimistic. They argue that while polarization is somewhat innate, it is neither inevitable nor incurable. And evidence suggests they are correct. For instance, a major international study in 2021 bringing together over 10,000 participants found not only that people’s perceptions of the extent of political divisions were starker than reality suggests, but that people were also receptive to the views of opposing groups when those views were properly explained.

Recognizing we have a tendency toward polarization and that it appears to be worsening as a problem, a number of researchers have also suggested ways in which leaders and policymakers could start to mitigate this trend. For instance, in 2019, writing for the “Greater Good Magazine,” Lee de-Wit, Sander van der Linden and Cameron Brick suggested five solutions.

Intergroup contact. This kind of format was used by citizens’ assemblies held in Ireland and France, which successfully brought together people with diverse experiences to find common ground on hot button issues.

Perspective-taking. This approach, in which people are encouraged to approach issues from someone else’s perspective, has been trialed to foster support for transgender issues, for example.

Superordinate goals. This method identifies common goals to construct a “large sense of ourselves that is able to bridge small differences.”

Proportional voting. This more representative electoral system addresses the “winner takes all” model of many democracies, so that elections are no longer zero-sum games.

Voting for policies, not for parties. The use of direct referendums on specific issues, a model used in both California and Australia, can bypass the party partisanship that often helps foster polarization.

Of course, these solutions aren’t perfect; some of them have drawbacks. Proportional voting, for instance, can result in atomized and paralyzed legislatures. And as the Brexit campaign demonstrated, referendums can create new alignments of polarization that cut across partisan party lines. However, used smartly and even in combination, these proposals could offer a way to mitigate the most toxic fallout from polarization, which appears to be overwhelming political systems around the world.

What’s more, these solutions now have champions in the form of the world’s younger generation. From Bangladesh to South Africa, young people are coming together to form nonpartisan movements as a result of both disillusionment with existing political party structures and their inability to deliver the societal transformation for which young people are hungry.

Perhaps, then, there is a light at the end of this tunnel of polarization in the form of a generational transition. While polarization might never be eradicated, it could be alleviated if the political debates that fuel it are managed better. And clearly, many young people agree.

Aishwarya Machani is a U.N. Foundation Next Generation Fellow. She led a consultative process bringing together hundreds of young people from around the world to contribute to the U.N. secretary-general’s “Our Common Agenda” report. She also co-authored “Our Future Agenda,” an accompanying vision and plan for next and future generations. She recently graduated from the University of Cambridge. Her weekly WPR column appears every Tuesday.