This week, the University of Virginia Center for Politics released a poll surveying Americans' feelings about their political opponents. According to the poll, 80% of Biden voters and 84% of Trump voters believed that elected officials of the opposite party present a "clear and present danger to American democracy"; 78% of Biden voters believed that the Republican Party wanted to eliminate the influence of "progressive values" in American life, while 87% of Trump voters believed that the Democrats wanted to eliminate "traditional values"; 75% of Biden voters and 78% of Trump voters believed that the opposing party's supporters were a "clear and present danger to the American way of life."
These statistics are, of course, alarming. The popular theory these days is that willingness by both Democrats and Republicans to abandon democratic norms -- election result acceptance, checks and balances, due process of law and all the rest -- is purely the result of reactionary dislike. If you fear your neighbor is going to abuse the process, you'd be a fool to stick to the process -- and the more we dislike our neighbors, the more we fear that they'll take advantage of us.
But is this theory correct? Is polarization actually the reason for increased willingness to ditch democratic norms?
According to a new study from political scientists David Broockman of the University of California, Berkeley, Joshua Kalla of Yale and Sean Westwood of Dartmouth, the answer is no. They write, "We find no evidence that an exogenous decrease in affective polarization causes a downstream decrease in opposition to democratic norms." In other words, Americans hating each other less does nearly nothing to reduce Americans' willingness to override democratic norms in order to achieve their goals.
If polarization isn't driving the undermining of norms, what is? Perhaps the answer is that the reverse is actually occurring: As we've abandoned democratic norms, we've come to despise our neighbors.
This makes a certain amount of logical and correlative sense. The Founding Fathers had a particular vision of human nature, believing human beings were capable of great things but were also rife with sin and corruption. Given the variability of human nature, epistemic humility -- a recognition that human beings are often wrong -- would be necessary. And that epistemic humility would translate into a desire for liberty. High-level government, in this view, would be hamstrung from cramming down a unitary form of virtue on a pluralistic society, at least; subsidiarity, in which local communities governed themselves while the federal government maintained certain basic norms, would be the proper approach. The federal government would be pitted against itself through checks and balances, creating obstacles that would necessitate broad agreement about use of power to legitimize such use of power.
Today, however, most Americans seem to instinctively recoil from this vision of human nature and its concomitant governmental approach. Instead, human beings are held to be entirely malleable creatures of circumstance who can be molded by a better system into their highest selves. Grant the "right person" with the "right principles" unending power, democratically or not, and watch virtue spring forth. The government isn't the problem, it's the solution.
The problem with this, of course, is that we all have different ideas of the right person and the right principles. And once we have agreed that the government (SET ITAL) ought (END ITAL) to have the ability to fix all our problems, anyone who stands in our way becomes a heretic. By abandoning the Founders' accurate characterization of human nature and the governmental structure embodied in the Constitution, we set ourselves up for polarization and rage.
Perhaps the first step toward fixing our newfound dislike for democratic norms is to re-inculcate not love of neighbor, but understanding of human flaws, human foibles and the limits of human understanding. Perhaps we ought to start with some epistemic humility. From that source, perhaps a renewal of democratic norms (SET ITAL) and (END ITAL) an embrace of our neighbors might spring.
Ben Shapiro, 37, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of "The Ben Shapiro Show," and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com. He is the author of the New York Times bestsellers "How To Destroy America In Three Easy Steps," "The Right Side Of History," and "Bullies." To find out more about Ben Shapiro and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM
23 comments:
Pseudo-intellectual gibberish.
For the last 30 years political election campaigns have been programming their audience with the message that the other side is evil, and their enemy. I blame the "must win at all costs" ethic (or lack thereof) for "polarization."
If we can take most of the money out of political elections, I think much of this will self-correct.
The media completed their main mission not long after the coverage of the gulf war. That is where the war chests (billions) were created. Since then it has been nothing but a show. Literally. Truth be told, I believe certain network heads got together with Trump and convinced him to run. Look what has happened since. Seriously, how else was Hillary kept away from the big chair ? Had to be the media moguls. Sure as hell wasn't Nancy or Chuck. Listen to Hannity real close ....he's a broken record reading from a script and when he gets off script ...... Tucker maintains the balance and may not even be in on the scam.Reality is that only a worldwide disaster can save us from what is coming.
@4:08 and, therefore, yours is a pseudo-intellectual comment?
@4:30pm
30 yrs? In 1961 (60 yrs ago) my Texas Catholic grammar school prayed every day that God would destroy Communism. Now we have it in Congress. In fact, we have a marxist/statist pope in the Vatican!
My neighbors on both sides and in back are democrats and I have zero empathy for them or their socialist agenda.
@4:57 ... That makes no sense whatsoever.
Who wants to bet that "Krusatyr" identifies proudly as a Christian conservative and yet proudly proclaims, against the core teaching of the Gospel, that he has "zero empathy" for his neighbors?
Krusatyr:
Apparently you didn't learn reading comprehension in your Texas Catholic grammar school. Not surprising, as it seems like all you did was pray.
Try reading 4:30's comment again and respond appropriately (if you can). The "All Democrats are socialist communists!" is really getting old.
@6:07
I have a Christian and Conservative American duty not to consort with evil, whether next door, across town or around the world.
Each party is operating in a conscienceless crusade to further the interests of the least deserving of their constituencies while pushing aside the needs of the most deserving/least demanding of their constituencies.
6:43, if you support the Democratic party you support
socialists/communists, as that is the platform of the Democratic party.
Krusatyr’s neighbors disagree with him. Therefore they are evil.
Krusatyr is privy to a special Gospel that says “Love thy neighbor as thyself, unless they vote for a Democrat.”
Some people are not happy unless they’re miserable.
The real problem is that people with a broad spectrum of political beliefs ranging from far left to far right, with most lumped towards the middle, find themselves expecting representation from just two inadequate political parties. Inadequate because they are hamstrung by a primary selection process dominated by the fringe elements of their parties. The people end up absolutely frustrated because they end up supporting the lesser of two evils rather than the better man or woman. Yes, the other side is evil, but so are you. That's the problem.
And 7:47 is holier than thou.
@7:47
Some of the rapes and robberies and murders one reads about have at their core a victim who made a bad choice to "consort" with an evil person or group, perhaps for selfish reasons.
If a person or organization demonstrates their willingness to rape, rob and kill, as Democrats have a proclivity to do, one ought trust their instincts for self preservation and avoid them.
Seems simple enough until one of the seven deadly sins prompts one to take a chance on the dark side.
How can a Mississippian complain about socialism when they are one of the biggest recipients of federal dollars to the tune of $2.88 for every $1, they contribute . Put your money where mouth is and send it back,I am sure the Californians and New Yorkers would love to have it back.
6:43 said of 4:59: "All Democrats are socialist communists!"
He didn't say that they were 'communists'...yet. He said he had zero empathy for them or their 'socialist agenda'.
(6:43 Try reading 4:59's comment again and respond appropriately (if you can).
@8:06PM -- I agree. Everyone is expected to fall into one of two parties, and other potential parties are tolerated at a distance (Libertarian) or targeted for destruction (Tea Party).
Further, no one who qualifies for, and should have the political position, wants it. They don't want to put their private lives in public view, the harassment, the opposition's outright lies intended to denigrate, and the pressure to "play the game" once in office.
Term limits and stringent campaign reform would go a long way in righting the ship.
The polarization (and extremism that follows) is the result of a districting system that creates the maximum number of "safe" districts for both parties with the occasional "toss up" district.
Candidates in safe districts are incentivized to adopt the most extreme positions of their parties lest they be "primaried" by a more extreme candidate.
This was all kicked off 60 years ago in response to voter suppression, but today's polarization is the result of crude legislative and judicial solutions to a societal evil from the last century (and before).
8:33:
No need. I have the amazing ability of inference. It's based on evidence and reasoning, which is severely lacking for some hardcore conservatives.
4:30's comment was a well thought-out statement that applied to both parties equally. Krusatyr was triggered by this neutral comment and replies with "communism bad!", "the pope is a marxist!, and "my neighbors are democrats!".
See the difference?
That was six hundred and sixty five words to say absolutely nothing.
Ben Shapiro is a hack writer and an even hackier talking head.
We’ll said Shapiro…. There are too many nuts on here sometimes.
October 7, 2021 at 7:47 PM; nice try, but disagreeing with someone does not make them evil. i disagree with my wife, but that does not make either of us evil.
what makes someone evil, is thinking, encouraging, and trying to codify into law, that killing an unborn baby is somehow a right.
what makes someone evil, is thinking, and encouraging illegal aliens to flood our country without knowing or caring who they are, and purposefully resettling them in your political opponent's areas.
what makes someone evil, is thinking, advocating, and trying to codify into law that mentally ill boys and men can compete with women in sports, and use women's restrooms, changing rooms and locker rooms.
what makes someone evil, is thinking, advocating and promoting drag queens and other mentally ill, sexual deviants to read story books to children in libraries. if you haven't heard of the rainbow dildo monkey, then do a quick search on the internet. it shouldn't take even you very long to find that disgusting story.
what makes someone evil, is thinking, encouraging, and codifying into law, a child's ability to get an abortion without their parents consent or knowledge.
what makes someone evil, is thinking, promoting, advocating for, and codifying into law, a child's ability to mutilate their bodies because they think they might be the other gender.
what makes someone evil, is implementing and/or agreeing that it's ok to force millions of American citizens to get an unproven "vaccine" as a condition for working, while at the same time, the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens flooding into our country are not being forced to get the "vaccine" and in most cases, not even being tested to see if they are sick.
what makes someone evil, is thinking, encouraging, supporting, and codifying into law the idea and practice that teaching en entire generation of kids, black, brown, and white, that you are a racist for no reason other than being born white; to view every interaction they have with anyone that's white through the lens of racism; to believe the greatest country on earth is a racist country.
what makes someone evil, is leaving behind possibly thousands of Americans in a hostile country, and leaving nearly 100 billion dollars worth of military equipment; ammo, guns, airplanes, helicopters, trucks, tanks, drones, surveillance equipment, and god only
knows what else, for a terrorist organization to now use against citizens of their own country, other countries around them, selling our technology to the highest bidder to reverse engineer and eventually use against us. pretending it's no big deal, and lie to the american people about the whole thing, then implementing a "vaccine "mandate to shift the media's attention away from the american citizens left to fend for themselves.
these are the things that make one evil. these are the planks of the democrat party platform. these are the things the democrats fight for, encourage, advocate for, support, and try to put into law. and as bad as these are, i know i've missed several.
disagreeing with someone does not make someone evil. believing, advocating for, supporting, and implementing the items i brought up, do make one evil. so, if you are a democrat, or vote democrat, then you support these things. you encourage these things. you promote these things. you like these things. and i know this, because if you didn't, then you wouldn't vote democrat. therefore, logic dictates, democrats are evil.
Post a Comment