After the 2016 election, it seemed as if the United States was more polarized than ever. In fact, the Pew Research Center has found that since the election, the gap between parties has been widening, especially with issues relating to government aid to the needy, racial discrimination and immigration. Some people often talk about trying to bridge the partisan divide, but rarely do we talk about how we plan on doing so. Better Angels, a nonprofit organization based in New York, aims to "depolarize America" through holding free workshops in which people who identify as conservative and liberal are brought together to discuss their beliefs and perspectives using marriage counseling methods. Over the past year, Better Angels has been holding free workshops around the country, asking both conservatives and liberals to "talk, listen and find what they have in common," according to the StarTribune.
I personally think this is an interesting concept, but like the organizers in the NPR article suggest, selection bias pays a large role in who chooses to participate. Though I want to be optimistic and think that programs such as this are impactful in bridging the political divide, I think those that are already more inclined to listen to the other side are the ones that attend. This is definitely a good way to get people from opposite sides of the political spectrum to get face to face and have these conversations, but I do wonder how big of an impact programs such as these will have.
Solving the issue of political polarization, or at least lessening its impacts, is no easy task, but I do have a few questions: how can we most effectively "bridge the political divide"? What do you think the impact of programs like Better Angels will have, and how impactful do you think such programs are? What is your opinion on Better Angels, and do you think their "marriage counseling methods" work? Why or why not?
Pew Research Poll
NPR
CityLab
StarTribune
11 comments:
I also think that this is quite an interesting idea. However, like you said, I am skeptical about the effectiveness of a program like Better Angels. I visited their webpage and the first thing I saw was a video about one of their conferences. 8 democrats and 7 Republicans participated in it and by the end they were all talking about how the conference helped them to understand the other side a bit better. This is a positive effect, however, the amount of people participating and being affected is extremely small. In order to decrease the polarization in America, there would have to be so many more conferences held, and having to reach that many people is probably not practically feasible. To most effectively "bridge the political divide," I think that our government has to set an example by engaging in more compromise between both parties. If congressmen and other political leaders are willing to do whatever it takes to sabotage the other side like some Republicans were in the "It's Even Worse Than It Looks" article, the American people may follow the example set by them and staunchly hold onto their beliefs.
Like both Kamille and Emily have said, I doubt Better Angels has made much of an impact, if any, in depolarizing America because they have such a small and limited outreach capability. However, I definitely think that their message and their works have a net positive effect overall, regardless of how small, in attempting to close the partisan divide. In any case, it's a step in the right direction. For that reason, I support the mentality of Better Angels and assume that their marriage counseling efforts do work, as I'm sure that the therapy and open discussion provide a safe and healing environment for couples. I agree with Emily's idea for combatting polarization, but I also think that polarization lies heavily within the mindsets of the people as a whole. I'm not sure how to reverse a problem that is so widespread, but perhaps the increase of small scale efforts like that of Better Angels will eventually turn us in the right direction.
I think that the idea of Better Angels has a good angle on what they want to accomplish. Although this can seem ineffective, it is a step in the positive direction with trying to take hate out of politics. It is definitely hard to have open conversations between conservatives and liberals about different topics, but this can just be something that helps keep people open minded.
I would have to agree with the previous comments in stating that Better Angels has an interesting, maybe even revolutionary (due to the sheer rise in polarization over the past decades), message behind it with the intent to bridge the political gap, but in my eyes, it’s not particularly effective. Kind of similar to what Kamille said previously, there is huge bias in terms of who actually wants to go to these “marriage counseling” sessions, who I think would be either quite moderate in their viewpoints or more open-minded to the other side’s perspective. If Better Angels was to be more widespread and include people of more radical viewpoints, I doubt that it would have much of an impact since each party is notorious for being staunch in their own viewpoints. If I’m going to be quite honest, I think that if these sessions were to happen, they would be reduced to arguing instead of leading people to a more politically centered viewpoint. I think that Emily’s idea of having the government be more compromising--or even having the government lead by example by holding Better Angels-esque sessions (though I don’t quite know how that would fit into the agenda)--can have a positive trickle-down effect and lead party constituents to view politics with less of a rigid stance.
While many of the previous comments have stated its direct ineffectiveness on the issue of polarization, I would like to somewhat disagree. It's the majority of the population that are strictly divided, which is reflected in the government. The idea of having politicians set an example of compromise and congeniality between the two political parties is a good one, but I believe programs such as Better Angels are beneficial in that they provide interest towards the public. While the program may only directly affect a few individuals, the implications behind the program, in other words the messages it sends of depolarization, are effective in an ideological sense. I'm glad to see that in our increasingly divided political world that programs are arising to help minimize the gap; basically, I believe the more efforts the better, or as Emma said, it's a step in the right direction, and it's impact may be greater in the long-term than is comprehensible as of now.
I think the idea of Better Angels is interesting and it has a new outlook on the polarization situation. It is a good idea as it allows for liberals and conservatives to talk out and understand each other's beliefs regardless of whether they agree with one another. I think this is better in theory, rather than reality. Like Kamille said, the people that are participating are more likely to hear the other views outside of this. I think this is a step in the right direction, but does not impact much of the polarization.
I agree that it is a really interesting concept of using marriage counseling to solve the issue of political polarization. I think it is good to have a structured and safe environment to discuss these issues, but I do agree that only the people that are open to hearing different perspectives will attend these meetings. Politics are at a point where people are so keen on believing that their views are right, and I think this is going to be really hard to undo or resolve. There are always going to be political differences, but like Allie said, I think marriage counseling is a step in the right direction.
I think one of the best things people on both sides can do is to listen to each other. Listen to each other with the goal of understanding, not of responding. And I think using marriage counseling techniques to accomplish this is actually a really good idea. Like the post mentions, there is obviously a selection bias, but I think that is okay, as we have to start somewhere. This post actually reminded of a TED talk I recently watched which is also on the topic of political polarization, and specifically how people who know each other but fall on opposite sides of the political spectrum can learn to understand each other. Here is the link if you are interested in watching it: https://www.ted.com/talks/caitlin_quattromani_and_lauran_arledge_how_our_friendship_survives_our_opposing_politics
I completely agree with Hannah and think that if we are ever going to fix this problem of polarization we need to focus on individuals. It's going to be hard to find a way to reach the people who don't want to listen and would never sign up for a program like this, but that is what we must do. We must find a way to spread a message of acceptance and teach individuals how to listen to each other. I think using a method such as the one that Better Angels uses, but implementing them in different places could work. For example, if an organization such as Better Angels was able to collaborate with high school government classes and give students the chance to try to bridge the gap created by polarization before they start voting, that might be an effective method. I think it's an amazing idea, but they need to find a way to target the people who don't want to listen, and teach them how.
This is a really interesting tactic for depolarizing America, however as others have previously said, the ultimate success of this will be very limited although it is a step in the right direction. A lot of far right or far left partisans will be stubborn and hard to reach to so the idea of Better Angels won't apply to them. Also, just as difficult as it is for Americans to go out and vote, it will be just as difficult for them to take time out of their day to attend meetings like these. It takes a lot of initiative that I believe a lot of individuals don't have when it comes to politics. I agree with Lydia that in order to start depolarizing America, the aim needs to be towards those who are on the furthest sides of the spectrum and get them to listen and learn the other side.
Like most people said, it is going to be hard for people to willingly try to reconcile with the opposite party. Like stated in the article, we are an extremely divided country and people are not going to want to talk things out. However, it is nice to see that groups are trying to connect us. As a country, it's important to be united and it's a step forward in an idea to fix the issue. However, it will be hard to gather people willing to enough to participate.
Post a Comment