given that many Americans feel left behind, the new leaders should begin by launching a listening tour during which they partner with local, trusted community groups to elicit grievances and proposed remedies. Research has shown that when members of disenfranchised groups feel heard by those in power, it can lead to constructive shifts in attitudes.
He also suggests strengthening local “bridge-building groups” that “fight against the pathologies of hate and can help citizens build bipartisan alliances that take on the structural incentives that divide us.”
He has a forthcoming book on the topic. Thanks to a reader for the pointer.
The suggestions are in line with what Yuval Levin wrote as the election was pending.
Americans have failed one another by failing to ask what the roles we each have in particular institutions — familial, communal, religious, educational, professional, civic and political — demand of us in key moments. Often what they demand is restraint and responsibility, doing your job rather than building your brand.
I don’t know if we actually have “local, trusted community groups” any more. It seems like we’ve let them atrophy while we were watching our screens.
And yes, commenting on a non-local blog while I don’t know my neighbors is a perfect example.
One key question is: Trusted by whom? Vanishingly few community groups are trusted by wide cross-sections of their communities, particularly across partisan alignments. If those groups are perceived as partisan, the airing of grievances and elicitation of proposed remedies will also be perceived as partisan, and will exacerbate the issue rather than mitigate it.
The other key question is: As Coleman asserts that “We will never talk our way out of this division; we must aim for structural change”, exactly what structural change is expected? The citation for the structural change assertion apparently recommends higher campaign contribution limits for PACs, and lower limits for individuals, to promote more moderate state legislators. It is unclear whether that prescription extends to national politicians.
Levin’s opinion piece seems long on kumbaya, and only addresses concrete issues in one paragraph. However, that paragraph — in listing goals like “teach[ing] our children what our community cherishes most”, providing feelings of respect and safety, and welcoming the unborn — just lists areas of disagreement. It does not point towards how “responsibility, integrity and, above all, solidarity” helps resolve the underlying disputes: What does the community cherish most? How do we balance between respect (mostly the presumption of non-criminality) while providing safety (robust response to criminal actions)? How do we build bridges between people who believe that unborn children have their own lives that should be protected, and those who call unborn children mere clumps of cells or parasites?
An awful lot of the partisan rancor comes out of fundamentally different viewpoints on important moral issues, and an environment where scoring rhetorical points — signaling affiliation — is seen as more important, more worthwhile, or at least more tangible, than identifying common ground and areas of compromise. To a first approximation, that preference for rhetoric over negotiation reflects the two-party system and the parties’ ability to put their national legislators in line.
+1
Isn’t obvious who he means? Academia, think tanks, etc. In other words, himself and people similarly situated.
I was thinking the same thing….
Arnold, you quote an unknown Hate-Trump, Columbia University professor, to preach love and peace. As I said earlier today in a comment to your previous post, you have lost your way to Open City. Professor Coleman is asking his readers to ignore humanity’s dark side to support the barbarians (just take a look at his letter’s references), so the magic of making love and peace can end polarization. Yes, Mao ended polarization in China.
Prof. Coleman skips the most important part of the process, where he gives control of local community decisions to those local community groups. Don’t like how they are raising their kids in that family? Don’t interfere. Don’t like that the neighborhood is all-[insert race]? That’s their problem, or their chosen path on the pursuit of happiness. Don’t like that they are pro/anti fast food/liquor/tobacco and the local business community won’t budge? So…?
If you actually respect them, you don’t repress them. If you just pretend to listen…
+1 thanks. I’m kinda thinking that it wasn’t a coincidence that that part got skipped over.
Sorry, I don’t think he’s skipping the most important part of the process. He refers to what Biden-Harris must do. Please read the entire letter he wrote. To avoid any misunderstanding this is the letter
“In their Policy Forum “Political sectarian- ism in America” (30 October 2020, p. 533), E. J. Finkel et al. summarize research on the multiple sources of the decades-long U.S. march to toxic polarization. However, the mitigation tactics they offer seem piecemeal and insufficient. To reverse a 50-year trajectory of runaway division(1), we need an evidence-based strategy tailored to structural change.
Research on how deeply divided societies change course (2) suggests that how leaders approach entrenched problems, especially early on in their tenure (3), can make the difference. Transformations are most likely to occur when leaders take office after a major political shock—like the COVID-19 pandemic or the 6 January storming of the Capitol by political extremists—has desta- bilized the status quo (4) and lead in a way that differs dramatically from the leadership that instigated the divisions (5). Moreover, in societies where distrust and suspicion reign (6), changes in political strategies are often best introduced with a public declara- tion of intention.
The Biden-Harris administration could apply such research by announcing a two- pronged strategy to defeat toxic division in America. First, given that many Americans feel left behind, the new leaders should begin by launching a listening tour during which they partner with local, trusted community groups to elicit grievances and proposed remedies (4). Research has shown that when members of disenfran- chised groups feel heard by those in power, it can lead to constructive shifts in atti- tudes (7). Large-scale initiatives like these, when transparent and brought to comple- tion, can begin healing (8).
Second, the new administration should seek to strengthen our national immune system. Research on international peace- building finds that many of the more sustainable initiatives helping communi- ties transition out of intergroup strife come from within (9). These local initia- tives (8) emerge in response to community challenges and manage to thrive under difficult circumstances. Today, there are thousands of bridge-building groups (10) across the United States that fit this bill, whose impact could be scaled up through federal funding, recognition, and coordina- tion. They fight against the pathologies of hate and can help citizens build bipartisan alliances that take on the structural incen- tives that divide us. This is critical. We will never talk our way out of this division (11); we must aim for structural change (12).
Peter T. Coleman
Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA. Email: pc84@columbia.edu
and these are the references and notes:
1. Pew Research Center, “Political polarization in the American public” (2014).
2. R. R. Vallacher et al., Attracted to Conflict: Dynamic Foundations of Destructive Social Relations (Springer- Verlag, 2013).
3. M. Macy et al., Sci. Adv. 5, eaax0754 (2019). 4. C.Gersick,Acad.Manag.Rev.16,10.5465/
amr.1991.4278988 (1991).
5. C. Gersick, J. Change Manag. 20, 7 (2019).
6. S. Lindskold, M. G. Collins, J. Conflict Resol. 22,
679 (1978).
7. E. G. Bruneau, R. R. Saxe, J. Exp. Soc. Psych. 48,
855 (2012).
8. J. Rothman, Ohio State J. Dispute Resol. 22, 105 (2006). 9. A.Munroe,“‘Positivedeviants’pointthewayinpeace-
building master’s program” (U.S. Institute of Peace,
2013).
10. MortonDeutschInternationalCenterfor
Cooperation and Conflict Resolution, “Organizations Transforming Polarization & Division” (2020); https://icccr.tc.columbia.edu/resources/ organizations-bridging-divides/.
11. E. Badger, K. Quealy, “These Americans tried to listen to one another. A year later, here’s how they’re voting,” The New York Times (2020).
12. M. J. Barber, J. Polit. 78, 296 (2016).
One of the “bridge building groups” listed is Niskanen.
Tulsi Gabbard’s comments about the impending police state seem about right. The idea of Machine Gun Pelosi tolerating electoral integrity protests seems laughable. The first bill introduced this Congress would force all the states to allow unregistered voters to show up on election day without any identification and votes. Mass harvesting of mail-in ballots would also be required.
Toxic division is needed as never before. The people locking this country into banana-republicanism need to be despised and hated vigorously.
No surprise. The rotten and corrupt democrats need to steal all future elections to impose their programs or to rely on the violence of radical leftists –including those serving Bernie– to keep power. It’s amazing how ignorant too many Americans are of what has been happening in other countries for a long time. Btw, Tyler Cowen is a good example of the American ignorant.
Oh please. Comments like this are part of the problem.
Coleman seeks to end polarization by giving us better leaders – or, at least, leaders made better by going on listening tours. I suggest that we need leaders who do less leading. If the federal government had less power over our lives, selecting government officials would no longer be a matter of life and death.
Amen.
Yes. It seems no coincidence that political polarization has increased with the extension and deeper intrusion of nationally-imposed government edicts into the lives of individuals, no matter their diverse locations, social/religious preferences, economic circumstances, or the like. Urban v rural, gay brides/grooms v cake bakers’ religious tenets, a $15 minimum wage which is already exceeded in coastal urban areas but vastly overprices labor in small towns in interior America.
And there is no limiting factor: as soon as one new imposition is forced on the American social fabric, another, even more intrusive, is created, which an additional number of affected individuals living at the margins of mainstream society refuse. That, is the source of the now broadened polarization of our American polity.
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2021/01/what-to-know-about-the-equality-act
I find myself caring very little for voice when I am denied exit.
–“new leaders should begin by launching a listening tour during which they partner with local, trusted community groups to elicit grievances and proposed remedies”–
Who, exactly, are these ‘trusted community groups’? I can’t think of any group which is trusted by 80%+ of the population anywhere.
Patience is necessary. The problem of polarization will not be “solved” like a riddle. It will fade away as history grinds away at it, as part of the slow, inexorable process of changing the subject.
Or changing the people.
“Can reconciliation solve polarization?”
Probably not. We are too big and too heterogeneous to make it work. Diversity is no longer a our strength (if it ever was).
Perhaps it’s time for an amicable break-up? Both sides just need to admit that “it’s not you, it’s me,” and then proceed from there.
Totally and completely unrelated, but how is that democracy building going in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Arnold, ask yourself, can reconciliation solve polarization in the Middle East? To answer this question you may read what the late Herschel Grossman wrote with D. Gershenson 20 years ago
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0022002700044006006
In late 2001, I relied heavily on their work to answer the same question but in relation to the Mindanao conflict.
If traditional institutions (representative democracy, local bridge-building groups) haven’t prevented polarization, then let’s experiment with new institutions that have intuitive appeal and potential scalability. An obvious candidate is deliberative democracy.
Use sortition (random selection of citizens) to constitute ‘political juries,’ approximately seminar size (to encourage active discussion). Sortition would assure diversity along all dimensions. Participants would receive substantial compensation. A jury’s topic might be local, national, a specific policy, a particular trade-off, a structural reform, agenda-setting for juries, etc. Plural juries would deliberate separately (in parallel) about a particular topic, to avoid idiosyncratic results. Juries would hear expert witnesses (education), deliberate (argue and perhaps bargain), and vote. The results would provide salient reference points for players in traditional institutions. The process would set a salient example of genuine civic dialogue across diversity.
The thought is that a four-step mechanism—sortition + education + deliberation + internal voting + aggregation of results of numerous parallel juries—might efficiently reconcile democracy and epistocracy (rule of experts), on issues small and large.
A pipedream? I hesitate between maybe and probably. Almost certainly harmless and fairly inexpensive. All manner of details would require trial and error. Given our predicament, why not experiment?
Inquiring minds will find an overview in Howard DeLong’s article, “Jeffersonian Teledemocracy,” ungated online at the link below:
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1405&context=roundtable
For a more systematic analysis and historical antecedents in the writings of the Founders, see Prof. DeLong’s books, Courts of Common Reason and The American Revolution in the 21st Century.
“Listening tour”? Don’t make me laugh, is Coleman serious? Has he ever seen one of those scripted events, or better yet, attended the equivalent in his own organizations where some leader pretends to care while some naive junior employees embarrass themselves by letting off steam, and then everyone walks away feeling more ignored and disillusioned than ever? You can’t make millions of people feel listened to by putting out a YouTube video of you nodding your head at some hand-picked “representatives” of selective grievance-holders.
Once again, I can’t help but be amused by this framing as if all we need is some national couple’s counselor therapy and the polarization is all some kind of big misunderstanding because we aren’t listening or effectively communicating with each other and showing that we care and making each other feel important and that they matter, etc.
Apparently it’s easier to acknowledge common-sense reality of polarization being about fundamentally irreconcilable disputes and zero-sum political conflicts, the answer to which is some form of power sharing, or quasi-independence, or at the very least some power to accept or reject proposals for major social change.
The whole point of a parliament or legislature is an institution where different constituencies can be represented and negotiate compromises regarding the law, various kinds of distributions, and the general social order.
But when Congress is a complete side-show to the real exercise of power and the President can write the laws and radically change the direction of government in the first two weeks of his administration by means of hundreds of edicts, then there is no possibility of negotiation and just one, ultra-high-stakes contest and life-and-death existential struggle for zero-sum political control every four years, which is not exactly what the founders had in mind in terms of a vision for a Constitutional Republic.
Congress is supposed to be the place where the enfranchising, representation, and talking is supposed to happen (the parler in parliament). It is supposed to be like one continuous “listening tour”, where representatives have to listen to each other. Now it isn’t, not even close.
People don’t feel represented because their representatives are neutralized (often, though not always, by their own hand), and thus have nothing to do but give money to friends and work on their brand. It is not congress if there is in fact no congregation, and all the speeches on CSPAN are given to empty rooms as the world’s most boring and unwatched performance art.
As for Levin’s admonitions, the less said the better.
Somewhat related, I was wondering what fraction of the people who occupied the Capitol Building were unemployed, or work for low wages.
Would a bunch of guys making solid six figures occupy the Capitol Building? I think not.
I suspect a large number of the occupants were the economically marginalized. I do not condone any form of violence, but the media engaged in pure demonization rather than to try to understand what motivated the occupants.
Some reconciliation may come from understanding that Trump supporters may feel economically marginalized. Let alone, the constant media demonization of white males may alienate others.
The most likely explanation is some combination of:
1) Had little to lose.
2) Felt they had little to lose.
3) Didn’t understand what they had to lose, if anything. I.E. figured they would get off easy like BLM rioters.
4) Had something to lose, but didn’t care.
1-3 are some mix of ignorance/deprivation.
#4 could be courage, nihilism, or both.
Making six figures would only only apply to some of those things (more to lose), but not all of them.
And in some cases would not even be a virtue to have done nothing (you feel people in congress do deserve it, but are too cowardly or selfish to act).
Like I hate congress and would not mind if they got a day of the rope (not necessarily for the election, just everything about them). My primary reason for not doing so is that I’d get arrested and not be able to provide for my family, nor is it entirely clear what impact such actions would have beyond revenge. The fact that my having something to lose restrains my actions doesn’t really change my feelings about what congress deserves.
I’d say congresses rock low approval rating over a long span of time is more critical to what happened on Jan 6th than the fact that society has people with so little to lose they do what I don’t.
“the media engaged in pure demonization rather than to try to understand what motivated the occupants.”
Yes. Why didn’t we get a few in depth interviews on TV with some of the protestors on a 30 minute or 60 minute show? Why weren’t they paired up with some left wingers or moderates and debate their grievances? I remember the Dick Cavett show in the 60s when John Kerrey was on with the guy that headed up the swift boat veterans for truth in 2004 debating the Vietnam War. Excellent stuff. Even Phil Donahue had Jerry Rubin on and it was an interesting interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdE04yrUIg8
The Washington Post did a story on three people who went into the Capitol. They were there because the lockdowns had destroyed their businesses and livelihoods. A lot of people are hitting desperation because the government destroyed their lives with the pandemic panic. They should fear a Mohamed Bouazizi-type setting off the power keg.
given that many Americans feel left behind, the new leaders should begin by launching a listening tour during which they partner with local, trusted community groups to elicit grievances and proposed remedies.
A common sentiment when there’s a new administration. This one is as unlikely to do so as every other has been. After all, he has a mandate, right?
Arnold, idiocy or malice? That is the question. I do not doubt the barbarians’ malice but I wonder whether the preachers that propose a reconciliation with the barbarians are idiots or malicious. I give them the benefit of the doubt and I presume they are idiots, the sort of idiocy that leads to the stupidity about which Carlo M. Cipolla wrote about. Last Monday, my presumption was stimulated by this paragraph:
“Second, and related, our work suggests gains from further exploring inattention, laziness, or confusion as potentially important drivers of information avoidance across a number of domains. It is possible that people rationally avoid information in response to problem complexity as in models of rational inattention and sparsity (Sims, 2003; Gabaix, 2014, 2017), that they avoid information because they look at problems the wrong way (see Handel and Schwartzstein (2018) for an excellent review), or even that the ability to avoid information provides individuals with an \excuse” not to fully think through decisions. While we have shown that image concerns can explain part of the information avoidance in a classic paradigm, much information avoidance remains. We see great promise in exploring the other drivers of information avoidance across domains.”
the final paragraph of NBER WP 28376.
Please, inform yourself. I suggest reading Angelo Codevilla’s new article
https://amgreatness.com/2021/01/26/dismounting-the-covid-tiger/
People will always feel “left behind” when they are forced to obey rules chosen for the benefit of somebody else. Reducing the size and the intrusiveness of government would do a lot to reduce political antagonisms. But even then, those who have a favored scheme that they want everyone to have to conform to–being unwilling to let others live as they please–would still be angry about politics.
I say this as: i) a member of the local (charter) school board ii) library volunteer iii) Sunday school teacher iv) a dude who put on work gloves after my city burned down this summer v) youth target sports instructor vi) husband of a (public) school teacher v) BSA leader vi) Girl Scout volunteer vii) special ed volunteer.
There. Are. No. Trusted. Local. Institutions. Any. More.
Thank you Terry. It sounds like you really know what you’re talking about. Would you be willing to explain with more specific detail?
On mobile. Please forgive brevity on topic that deserves more.
This is a trends and forces thing. No villian. Not left. Not right. Etc. You know about assortive mating? We sort out hobbies too. Progressive Sunday school teachers are rare. Conservatives at the post riot clean up rare.
People don’t have full images of people unlike themselves. How many people are friends with a gender fluid barista and a Proud Boy? Not me. So they become characitures in our heads. Labels.
And… Our would be guardians of trustworthy institutions suck and aren’t trying. Roberts wants you to think of Supreme Court as dignified apolitical institutions. Acts like political shit weasel. Politicos and leaders never resign in shame anymore. We live in a culture of lies. Do you believe anything your HR department tells you? Your guidance councilor? What reporter values the truth more than their tribe. Greenwood. And… Uh…. They tried to burn him as a witch.
And our institutions suck. 4 reporters contact Scott Alexander to explain their doxing policy. They give him 4 mutually exclusive stories. Our dystopia was written by an abserdist.
Compare arnold’s vaccine story to ww2 mobilization. Or look up what’s going on in High State Capacity Minnesota. Name the last well crafted law passed by congress.
Ok not short. At least you get my crummy shorthand and typos.