Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Reducing Political Divides Must – and Can – Occur at Massive Scale

Reducing Political Divides Must – and Can – Occur at Massive Scale

American flag, megaphone

Photo by Mikhail Nilov/pexels.com

Efforts to bring the country back together must collectively achieve massive scale, impacting at least 85 million Americans (and probably more). It may seem daunting, but the right efforts can plausibly achieve this goal.

These efforts include what is sometimes called “ depolarization ” or “ bridge-building,” though initiatives must go well beyond today’s overwhelmingly conversation-based methods to achieve this scale. Structural reforms are another key element.


In terms of America’s democratic stability, the most pressing need for these efforts comes from dramatic misperceptions of the threat posed by everyday Americans from the other political party. Americans are much less supportive of breaking democratic norms than the other side believes, think members of the other party dehumanize them more than twice as much as in reality, and overestimate the share in the other party supportive of political violence by more than 10x.

This is coupled with both short-term and long-term increases in “ affective” (emotional) polarization.

These misperceptions and negative emotions are widespread among the American public. Thus, any efforts to deal with them must also be widespread.

A low-end estimate for the number to target is over 85 million when looking at the number of 2024 voters, divided by political affiliation who have a “ very unfavorable ” view of the other party.**

Add in some non-voting adults, soon-to-be voting teenagers, those with only unfavorable (instead of very unfavorable) views of the other party, and so on, and the target audience quickly blows past nine digits to over 100 million.

How can we meaningfully affect this many people?

Americans’ views of each other can change via either the information environment or conversations. The information environment offers much more obvious avenues for scale, though messaging about conversations can contribute.

Messaging and stories in the information environment from various sectors can directly correct negative misperceptions of each other. See social media content from Builders and All We Share, the goals of Bridge Entertainment Labs, and top-performing video interventions from the Strengthening Democracy Challenge led by Stanford. One of the authors, James, is Co-Founder and Executive Director of More Like US, which offers guidance for those in the Arts.

Messaging can also encourage conversations, as seen in videos produced with NFL players as part of StoryCorps’s One Small Step, or can give memorable conversation guidance, like the ABCs of Constructive Dialogue from Urban-Rural Action. However, many Americans may not want to engage in time-consuming conversations with uncertain benefits.

Messaging must be coupled with structural reforms to reverse the perverse incentives in electoral systems, news media, social media, and among special-interest groups that often reward demonization of others with money, fame, and power. Electoral structural reformers play an important role, as do key initiatives to try to change advertising flows for news, like the partnership between Ad Fontes Media and The Trade Desk or efforts of the Council for Responsible Social Media.

Meanwhile, conversation workshops are decently effective at reducing political divides among participants, but sufficient scale seems impossible. A daily workshop for 20 new people in each state would take well over 200 years to reach the low-end target of 85 million…a single time.

Attitudinal change on this scale may seem overwhelming but recognize that massive societal perspective changes are possible. Take interracial marriage, support for which was 4% in 1958 but is now at 94%.

We can change attitudes about each other across politics at society-wide scales. We need to start now.

** As of writing, there were 155.2 million 2024 voters, Pew found political affiliation around Republicans (32%), Democrats (33%), and Independents (35%), and YouGov found 74% of Democrats and 68% of Republicans had a “ very unfavorable ” of the other party, along with a low of 29% of Independents very unfavorably viewing Republicans. Multiplication across leads to a target audience of 87.4 million.

James Coan is the co-founder and executive director of More Like US. Coan can be contacted at James@morelikeus.org

Imre Huss is a current intern at More Like US.






Read More

Two speech bubbles overlapping each other.

Political outrage is rising—but dismissing the other side’s anger deepens division. Learn why taking outrage seriously can bridge America’s partisan divide.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

Taking Outrage Seriously: Understanding the Moral Signals Behind Political Anger

Over the last several weeks, the Trump administration has deployed the National Guard to the nation’s capital to crack down on crime. While those on the right have long been aghast by rioting and disorder in our cities, pressing for greater military intervention to curtail it, progressive residents of D.C. have tirelessly protested the recent militarization of the city.

This recent flashpoint is a microcosm of the reciprocal outrage at the heart of contemporary American public life. From social media posts to street protests to everyday conversations about "the other side," we're witnessing unprecedented levels of political outrage. And as polarization has increased, we’ve stopped even considering the other political party’s concerns, responding instead with amusement and delight. Schadenfreude, or pleasure at someone else’s pain, is now more common than solidarity or empathy across party lines.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two speech bubbles overlapping.

Recent data shows that Americans view members of the opposing political party overly negatively, leading people to avoid political discourse with those who hold different views.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

How To Motivate Americans’ Conversations Across Politics

Introduction

A large body of research shows that Americans hold overly negative distortions of those across the political spectrum. These misperceptions—often referred to as "Perception Gaps"—make civil discourse harder, since few Americans are eager to engage with people they believe are ideologically extreme, interpersonally hostile, or even threatening or inferior. When potential disagreement feels deeply uncomfortable or dangerous, conversations are unlikely to begin.

Correcting these distortions can help reduce barriers to productive dialogue, making Americans more open to political conversations.

Keep ReadingShow less
Divided American flag

Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson writes on the serious impacts of "othering" marginalized populations and how, together, we must push back to create a more inclusive and humane society.

Jorge Villalba/Getty Images

New Rules of the Game: Weaponization of Othering

By now, you have probably seen the viral video. Taylor Townsend—Black, bold, unbothered—walks off the court after a bruising match against her white European opponent, Jelena Ostapenko. The post-match glances were sharper than a backhand slice. Next came the unsportsmanlike commentary—about her body, her "attitude," and a not-so-veiled speculation about whether she belonged at this level. To understand America in the Trump Redux era, one only needs to study this exchange.

Ostapenko vs. Townsend is a microcosm of something much bigger: the way anti-democratic, vengeful politics—modeled from the White House on down—have bled into every corner of public life, including sports. Turning “othering” into the new national pastime. Divisive politics has a profound impact on marginalized groups. Neither Ostapenko nor Donald Trump invented this playbook, yet Trump and his sycophants are working to master it. Fueled by a sense of grievance, revenge, and an insatiable appetite for division, he—like Ostapenko—has normalized once somewhat closeted attitudes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand blocking someone speaking

The Third Way has recently released a memo stating that the “stampede away from the Democratic Party” is partly a result of the language and rhetoric it uses.

Westend61/Getty Images

To Protect Democracy, Democrats Should Pay Attention to the Third Way’s List of ‘Offensive’ Words

More than fifty years ago, comedian George Carlin delivered a monologue entitled Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television.” It was a tribute to the legendary Lenny Bruce, whose “nine dirty words” performance led to his arrest and his banning from many places.

His seven words were “p—, f—, c—, c———, m———–, and t—.”

Keep ReadingShow less