Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Polarization is more of a cultural problem than a political one

Illustration of a split American flag

Steve McIntosh argues, "Our constitutional system was designed with compromise as its cornerstone. But compromise has now become a dirty word."

wildpixel/iStock/Getty Images Plus

McIntosh is president of the Institute for Cultural Evolution, a Colorado think tank focused on the cultural roots of America's political problems, and author of "Developmental Politics: How America Can Grow Into a Better Version of Itself" (Paragon House).

Vox co-founder Ezra Klein's new book, "Why We're Polarized," has helped refocus the nation's attention on the forces dividing our society. While the debate continues over which of the many contributing factors are most decisive, all commentators agree that hyperpolarization is an existential threat to American democracy.

Our constitutional system was designed with compromise as its cornerstone. But compromise has now become a dirty word. Over the last few decades, the focus of American politics has shifted from a relatively civil contest over issues and policy to a bitter battle over morality and identity.


Almost every human polity is divided between those who are most concerned about improving what's wrong and those who are more focused on preserving what's right. There's even research showing that the ubiquitous polarity of left and right is heritable: People are born with brains that find one side or the other more congenial, although life experiences can still influence where they end up. Yet while some degree of polarization is natural and inevitable, our current state of hyperpolarization is unprecedented in the modern era. And this is because we're fighting over something bigger and more important than politics alone. Our current struggle is really about the larger meaning of American culture overall.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Analyzing this problem through a cultural lens reveals how American society has become "stretched out" as a result of its own development.

The progressive culture that first emerged in the 1960s has now come to control many key American institutions. While our politics remain divided between two major parties, our culture is now divided into three major worldviews: the mainstream worldview of modernity, the socially conservative traditional worldview, and "the progressive postmodern worldview."

Polarization is no longer limited to left and right. The rise of Sen. Bernie Sanders in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, to cite only one recent example, reveals polarization on the left between modernity and progressivism.

The divisive impact of progressive culture, however, is downplayed by many leading progressives. In a commendable effort to fashion an empirical and predictive model of polarization, Klein grounds his analysis in social science research. Although he identifies a variety of contributing factors, he ultimately concludes that the changing demographics of race is the primary cause of hyperpolarization. Yet while partially true, this racial explanation doesn't get at the cultural roots of America's poisoned politics.

Recent research from the Hidden Tribes report and the ongoing work of the University of Michigan's World Values Survey confirm the rise of progressive culture. But while useful for understanding the problem of hyperpolarization, social science's value-neutral stance precludes it from providing a solution.

To remedy this debilitating problem, we need political philosophy. Like the subject of ethics, the subject of values — which are the basis of culture — can only be adequately understood from a philosophical perspective. By using political philosophy, we can see how America's national schism is actually resulting from the uneven development of our culture.

And once we recognize how polarization is being caused by our own growth, the solution becomes evident: We need to grow further.

Cultural maturation, however, is not simply a matter of becoming more progressive. Indeed, it's the emerging pathologies of progressivism itself — its anti-modernism and reverse patriotism — that are exacerbating our social discord.

In order to overcome hyperpolarization, we need to foster the growth of "post-progressive" culture. A post-progressive political perspective can see how all three major American worldviews — modernism, traditionalism and progressivism — each include enduring values that our society needs, as well as accompanying pathologies that we must work to overcome. While this emerging perspective affirms progressive values such as environmentalism and greater inclusion, it transcends progressivism by affirming the legitimacy and ongoing necessity of modernist values and traditional values as well.

Liberal elites are largely blind to the threat that progressivism poses to America's historically established culture. And this causes them to misdiagnose the underlying forces that are roiling America's culture war. While racism is certainly a factor, the millions of Americans of good sense and good faith who nevertheless voted in 2016 for Donald Trump did so because of their perceived need for a "cultural bodyguard" — someone who could protect them from progressivism's ongoing attack on their values.

From a post-progressive perspective, however, the solution to hyperpolarization does not involve vilifying or jettisoning progressivism. The rise of progressive culture represents an important step in the evolution of American society. But the disruptive effects of this cultural emergence are now pressuring us to take the next step in our social evolution.

And this next step will be found through an inclusive new political stance that can recognize the interdependence of America's three major worldviews, and thereby affirm the full spectrum of positive American values.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less
Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Peter Wood is an anthropologist and president of the National Association of Scholars. He believes—like many Americans on the right—that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump and the January 6th riots were incited by the left in collusion with the FBI. He’s also the author of a new book called Wrath: America Enraged, which wrestles with our politics of anger and counsels conservatives on how to respond to perceived aggression.

Where does America go from here? In this episode, Peter joins Ciaran O’Connor for a frank conversation about the role of anger in our politics as well as the nature of truth, trust, and conspiracy theories.

Keep ReadingShow less