Opinion | Civil discourse is essential for the continuation of democracy

With the stunning lack of discourse among people, America is becoming more and more divided. In a 2019 Pew Research poll, a large majority of Americans agreed that discourse has recently become more negative — less respectful, less fact-based and less substantive.

Even Americans’ views on COVID-19 are now split by party lines. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that Democrats are twice as likely tothe virus an “imminent threat.” Similarly, a Ipsos/ABC News poll showed that 86% of Republicans and 14% of Democrats approve of how President Donald Trump is handling the pandemic.

Any set of facts is amenable to a large amount of interpretations. It is only natural that those interpretations give rise to different ideologies and political parties, but it becomes maladaptive when the character of your ideological advisory is called into question. To counteract this divide, and to create more positive interactions among people with differing opinions, Americans must make a conscious effort to engage with the opposing side and attempt to come to some resolution on a given topic.

A recent study conducted by More In Common found that approximately 80% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats said the opposing party was brainwashed, hateful and racist, while more than 90% of people in both parties described themselves as honest, reasonable and caring.

The initial problem seems to stem from two factors — the first being automatic assumption of malevolence and the second being a lack of understanding of where the other side falls. Respectful dialogue cannot happen if both sides of a political debate think they have absolutely no common ground to stand on.

According to a More In Common study, people have a massively skewed perception of what people of opposing viewpoints actually believe. Those most interested in politics, thereby having the strongest opinions, and those who consume media and engage in social media are most likely to have a skewed perception of what the other side believes. This leads to an overall perception that Americans are more divided than they really are.

One large influence on the perception gap is the consumption of media. Media outlets such as Breitbart News and Slate contribute the most to people’s skewed estimates of what other people believe. Consequently, consuming no media outlets correlates with having the most accurate view of people’s viewpoints, meaning the less that you listen to talk radio or watch and read media outlets, the less likely you are to have a skewed outlook on other peoples’ opinions. However, it is still important to stay informed, in ways such as reading books and news articles.
“Moving from consuming media ‘only now and then’ to ‘most of the time’ is associated with a near-tripling of the Perception Gap. This effect is symmetrical regardless of people’s position on the political spectrum,” the study says.

The recent rise of social media is also a large contributing factor to this perception gap. A recent Pew Research study found that almost half of adults ages 18-24 are online “almost constantly.” When we use our phones for hours a day, those are hours of our time that we aren’t physically engaging with other people and are instead catered to how we want to perceive the world.

Chamath Palihapitiya, a former Facebook executive, said in an interview that the confirmation bias caused by echo chambers in social media communities is fueling the perceived divide in our culture.

“It literally is a point now where I think we have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works. That is truly where we are,” Palihapitiya said. “The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops that we have created are destroying how society works — no civil discourse, no cooperation, misinformation, mistruth.”

The answer to this growing divide seems to be simply engaging with the opposing side, and not forming echo chambers — on social media as well as within your friend group. The best way to understand the other side is to have an actual discussion with them, rather than resorting to insults. All great change in America begins at the dinner table, so the saying goes.

One notable study by the Center of Deliberative Democracy at Stanford University found substantial changes in one’s original position just by conversing with someone with an opposing viewpoint. Republicans with hard-line beliefs about immigration as well as Democrats with strong beliefs about minimum wage both became more moderate.

“After this long weekend of intense dialogue across our divisions, reflecting America in all its diversity, 95% agreed that they ‘learned a lot about people very different from me — about what they and their lives are like.’ They also learned a great deal about our biggest policy challenges, and they expressed a desire to stay more informed,” the study says.

It seems that we are able to come together in times of national disaster. Trump approved a bipartisan deal on Wednesday that will provide economic relief to those affected by the COVID-19 outbreak. However, if we are not able to reach agreements regularly, we will not be able to accomplish much of anything. John McCain highlights this point in his farewell letter.

“We weaken our greatness when we confuse our patriotism with tribal rivalries that have sown resentment and hatred and violence in all the corners of the globe,” he wrote. “We weaken it when we hide behind walls, rather than tear them down, when we doubt the power of our ideals, rather than trust them to be the great force for change they have always been.”

Discourse is an integral part of America’s foundation. A healthy democracy will always have some amount of disagreement, but it becomes dysfunctional when traits and positions are incorrectly assumed about the opposing side. The only way we can return to having respectful discourse is to have discussions with people of opposing viewpoints and make a conscious decision to reconcile our differences.

Editor’s Note: A previous version of this column incorrectly accredited a study to the Heterodox Academy. The study belongs to More In Common. The Pitt News regrets this error. 

Hayden primarily wrote about politics for The Pitt News. Write to Hayden at hwt3@pitt.edu.