Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

'One side will win': The danger of zero-sum framings

silhouettes of people arguing in front of an America flag
Pict Rider/Getty Images

Elwood is the author of “Defusing American Anger” and hosts the podcast “People Who Read People.”

Recently, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was surreptitiously recorded at a private event saying, about our political divides, that “one side or the other is going to win.” Many people saw this as evidence of his political bias. In The Washington Post, Perry Bacon Jr. wrote that he disagreed with Alito’s politics but that the justice was “right about the divisions in our nation today.” The subtitle of Bacon’s piece was: “America is in the middle of a nonmilitary civil war, and one side will win.”

It’s natural for people in conflict to see it in “us versus them” terms — as two opposing armies facing off against each other on the battlefield. That’s what conflict does to us: It makes us see things through war-colored glasses.


And as more people embrace “we’re at war” framings and language, this amplifies the toxicity of the conflict — and can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The truth is that our conflict, like most conflicts, is complex and nuanced. It is not one side versus the other. It is not a binary battlefield. What we have are debates over a multitude of issues. Some of these issues do cluster in predictable ways, but that doesn’t mean it’s one side versus the other.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The truth is that many Americans have views that don’t abide by “Republican versus Democrat” or “left versus right” framings.

I’ll use myself as an example: I think some antiracism ideas are simplistic and divisive. Some people might categorize some of my views on that and other issues as conservative but I reject that label. I have other views that many would see as liberal but I’d reject that label, too. I don’t see my views as related to some overarching ideological divide or spectrum.

People who embrace a “we’re at war” framing would say that I and others must “pick a side.” But we don’t have to do that — and we shouldn’t do that.

The illogical pressures a polarized society places on us to align with all the stances of one political party or the other may be one reason so many people are no longer identifying as a Republican or Democrat.

To be clear, this is not to say that there aren’t important and emotion-provoking issues. There are. I personally think it’s of the utmost importance that Trump is defeated. But being against Trump doesn’t require a warlike, “one side will win” narrative. It’s a stance on a specific issue: Trump himself. And as with most issues, that stance can be held by both self-described liberals and self-described conservatives.

When we embrace warlike narratives about our divides, our divides get more toxic. And because animosity and fear lead to more extreme and non-negotiable stances, such framings also help create the very things many of us are upset about.

In their book “The Myth of Left and Right,” Verlan and Hyrum Lewis make a persuasive case that “liberals” and “conservatives” are largely social groupings — not groupings based on a coherent, overarching ideology. The work of researcher Michael Macy supports this idea; he’s investigated how group stances can be formed in unpredictable, random ways. This more flexible and tribe-oriented view of our divides help explain how group stances can shift suddenly and dramatically (for example, Trump moving the GOP to economic stances previously associated with liberals).

“If people saw the reality of political pluralism, they’d see that both parties stand for many unrelated issues, some good, some bad. As is, they have the delusion that there is just one big issue, so if a party is on the correct side (left or right) of the one big issue, then they are correct about everything,” Hyrum Lewis wrote in a email.

People who wrongly perceive a winner-take-all battlefield fail to see that society can absorb and process conflicts in complex and unpredictable ways. Yes, some issues may have or require clear winners, but others might result in mixed outcomes or creative compromises. America’s mixed economy, with its capitalistic and socialistic aspects, shows how ideas that are sometimes framed as at-odds can coexist. Also, America is a big country; some stances on an issue might prosper in some areas of society but fail in others.

If we want to avoid worst-case scenarios of chaos, dysfunction and violence, we must think about how our narratives and language can make those scary paths either more likely or less likely.

We can reduce political toxicity by avoiding “we’re at war” and “left versus right” rhetoric. We can debate issues and work towards our own political goals without using such flattening and conflict-amplifying rhetoric.

Not only will that help reduce our political toxicity, it will help people be more persuasive in their activism on specific issues. When our divides are framed as a war between left and right, that makes it almost impossible for us to persuade someone on the “other side” who may have otherwise supported our stance on a specific issue. By promoting the idea that there’s no war but just a bunch of issues, that reduces team-based pressures on people and helps them make more nuanced choices.

To avoid worst-case scenarios in America, we’ll need to help politically passionate people see how avoiding warlike rhetoric isn’t just something they do for the country — but something that will help them achieve their own goals.

Read More

A Right to Exist in Mutual Dignity

Paper cut-outs of people and the earth.

Getty Images, Liliia Bila

A Right to Exist in Mutual Dignity

The question of Israel's right to exist isn't an abstract debate—it's written in the ashes of six million souls, in the tears of generations, and in the fierce determination of a people who refuse to let their story end in darkness. Any questioning of Israel's right to exist is to whisper that the Jewish people's centuries-long journey of survival, resilience, and hope, somehow matters less than others. As a Black American, I know too well how systems of oppression work to deny people their fundamental humanity.

When Hamas' charter calls for Israel's destruction, it echoes the same dehumanizing logic that has justified countless atrocities past and present. However, there is an inconvenient truth one must remain answerable to. Israel's right to exist doesn't permit any of us to look away from Palestinian suffering. Personal experiences with injustice inform the understanding that pain doesn't cancel out pain. Trauma doesn't negate trauma. The Jewish people have a right to security and self-determination in their uniquely established territorial homeland alongside—not in opposition to—the Palestinian people's right to dignity and self determination in their ancestral homeland.

Keep ReadingShow less
Interpersonal communication is a – not the only – way to reduce political divides
Polarization and the politics of love
Polarization and the politics of love

Interpersonal communication is a – not the only – way to reduce political divides

Think of the words “a” and “the.” Two of the smallest and most basic words in English, it is easy to not think very closely about which to use.

Yet when it comes to thinking about how to reduce perceived political divides, the difference becomes clear.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fulcrum Democracy Forum: Maxine Rich

Maxine Rich, Program Manager with Common Ground USA at Search for Common Ground

Fulcrum Democracy Forum: Maxine Rich

Maxine Rich is the Program Manager with Common Ground USA at Search for Common Ground.

Rich applies proven methods from international peacebuilding to shore up social cohesion in the United States. She oversees efforts to reduce online polarization and build grassroots resilience to extremism.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Republican Party Can Build A Winning Coalition With Independents

People voting at a polling booth.

Getty Images//Rawpixel

The Republican Party Can Build A Winning Coalition With Independents

The results of the 2024 election should put to bed any doubts as to the power of independent voters to decide key elections. Independents accounted for 34% of voters in 2024, handing President Trump the margin of victory in every swing state race and making him only the second Republican to win the popular vote since 1988. The question now is whether Republicans will build bridges with independent voters and cement a generational winning coalition or squander the opportunity like the Democrats did with the independent-centric Obama coalition.

Almost as many independents came out to vote this past November as Republicans, more than the 31% of voters who said they were Democrats, and just slightly below the 35% of voters who said they were Republicans. In 2020, independents cast just 26% of the ballots nationwide. The President’s share of the independent vote went up 5% compared to the 2020 election when he lost the independent vote to former President Biden by a wide margin. It’s no coincidence that many of the key demographics that President Trump made gains with this election season—Latinos, Asians and African Americans—are also seeing historic levels of independent voter registration.

Keep ReadingShow less