Deeply Divided: How Moderation in Political Discourse Is the Best Hope for American Politics

Are Americans today more divided than ever before? Sharp differences of opinion are hardly new to the American body politic. Barely a dozen years after the founding of the country, disagreements about America’s proper level of involvement in foreign affairs fed a fracture that became a permanent fixture of the U.S. political landscape: the two-party system. Two generations later, deep divisions over domestic policy regarding slavery led to a bloody civil war in which brother fought brother and eleven states unsuccessfully seceded from the Union. The civil rights movement of the mid-1950s further revealed deep and factious fault lines among Americans. 

Each of these periods was marked by civil disobedience, protest, and even civilian-on-civilian violence. Eventually, however, the body politic healed from these divisions as either a new national consensus eventually emerged (the legal equality of persons regardless of race, in the case of the U.S. Civil War and the civil rights movement) or the political system developed a rule of engagement for resolving dispute (the two-party system developed post-1800). It is unclear whether today’s divisions will likewise be tempered into a durable armistice or whether–in the words of Yeats’ Second Coming– “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold” and “mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,” or at least upon the nation. 

In answering the question, one cause for pessimism is the fact that much of today’s division appears to be driven not as much by passionate convictions about a vision of the common good but by mutual loathing and trolling. Put differently, today’s disputes appear motivated by a deep entrenchment in one’s own ideologies. It is run by instincts to destroy the other side through silencing–and by no other loftier end game. 

Undoubtedly, the nation faces underlying ideological divisions. But the greater threat is how Americans are resolving these differences. Indeed, it is precisely because of the sharp policy differences between Americans today that it is necessary to revive the tools of civil discourse and constructive good faith.

Radicalism Today: On Social and Governmental Levels

Underneath the deep polarity between the “right” and the “left” is a disturbing commonality:  the shutting down of discourse entirely. This is edified in the election denialism rampant in certain quarters on the far right, and in the “cancel culture” that has become too common on the far left. With the former (“Stop the Steal” denialists), they shut down the discourse by simply–and without evidence–denying the legitimacy of an entire U.S. presidential election–and, thus, the legitimacy of the current administration. With the latter (far-left de-platformers), they avoid engaging in the merits of debates regarding hot-button issues by simply labelling their ideological opponents as requiring not engagement or rebuttal, but swift and complete silencing. 

Neither side of the political spectrum is capable of upholding tolerance or enlightenment. Social shunning and “cancel” culture create an infinite cycle of stagnation. This is not progress. The New York Times Editorial Board summarised, “Many on the left refuse to acknowledge that cancel culture exists at all, believing that those who complain about it are offering cover for bigots to peddle hate speech. Many on the right, for all their braying about cancel culture, have embraced an even more extreme version of censoriousness as a bulwark against a rapidly changing society, with laws that would ban books, stifle teachers and discourage open discussion in classrooms.” 

True Progress

Perhaps the bedrock of the issue lies in the behaviours adopted by our politicians – name-calling, unyielding conviction, and ruthless ambition – which feed the social issues stagnated by terminated discourse. Moderation today looks like voting for policy, not people. Voters must disregard both the branding and bashing of politicians, and civil discourse must adopt patience and tolerance between ideologies. It looks to be an uncomfortable fight ahead towards progression, problem-solving, and cooperation. We must recognize the thick fog that surrounds us and find a way to break through these factious lines.

Sources 

Yeats, William Butler. “The Second Coming.” Nov 1920. Accessed via the Poetry Foundation. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43290/the-second-coming. 

The New York Times Editorial Board. “America has a Free Speech Problem.” New York Times, 18 March, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/18/opinion/cancel-culture-free-speech-poll.html