Disagreeing Agreeably

Issue Debates with a Primer on Political Disagreement

Glen Smith

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781000020205
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book facilitates civil discussion of controversial political issues. Unique to this book is a section that explains how to discuss politics without feeling angry or hostile toward people who hold different beliefs. In addition, the book provides concise and accessible debates of contemporary policy issues including gun control, immigration, the Electoral College, voting, and affirmative action. For each topic, readers are shown that opposing arguments are based on values and concerns that are widely shared by most people regardless of their political leanings. Perfect for students, professors, and citizens alike, this book promotes civility without shying away from controversy.

1

AN INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL HOSTILITY

Since the turn of the 21^st century, there has been an alarming rise in anger and hostility in American politics. Political commentators in the news media, as well as prominent politicians, have expressed a great deal of concern that the members of the two political parties seem to increasingly dislike each other. A recent report by the Pew Research Center provides numerous examples illustrating a stunning increase in political hostility. For example, “More than half of Democrats (55%) say the Republican Party makes them ‘afraid,’ while 49% of Republicans say the same about the Democratic Party” (Pew Research Center 2016). The most widespread complaint about the other party is that they are closed-minded. In 2016, 70 percent of Democrats said they believed Republicans were more closed-minded than most Americans, while a majority (52%) of Republicans said the same about Democrats (Pew Research Center 2016). There is additional research showing that partisans feel increasing animosity toward people in the opposing party (Iyengar, Sood, and Lelkes 2012; Iyengar and Westwood 2015).

The increasing political hostility between opposing partisans has important consequences for how we get along with other people. Political differences can result in the loss of valuable friendships and even estrangement from family members. For example, one survey found that roughly a quarter (26%) of those using social media have “hidden, blocked, defriended or stopped following someone” because of a political disagreement (Pew Research Center 2014). For some, political differences have even strained relationships with family members and romantic partners (Pesce 2016; McCarthy 2016; Holmes 2017). During the 2016 presidential campaign, a Pew Research Center survey found that 41 percent of couples—that supported opposing candidates—said they had argued about politics (Holmes 2017). Perhaps to avoid future conflict, partisans are ruling out members of the opposing Party as potential romantic partners (Huber and Malhotra. 2017). Additionally, parents are increasingly likely to say that they would be uncomfortable with their child marrying someone in the opposing political party (Iyengar, Sood, and Lelkes 2012). In short, the inability to rationally and productively deal with political disagreements can have important consequences for people’s personal relationships.

Political animosity also extends to political leaders in opposing parties. According to Gallup, the election year gap in presidential approval between Republicans and Democrats is wider than at any point since approval has been recorded (Jones 2014). For example, Barack Obama’s approval rating among Republicans in 2012 was 10 percent, compared to 86 percent approval among Democrats. This partisan divide is similar to his predecessor George W. Bush, who recorded a 13 percent approval rating among Democrats in 2004, which dropped to 6 percent during his last year in office. By comparison, Democrat Bill Clinton had a 23 percent approval rating among Republicans during his reelection bid in 1996, and Republican Ronald Reagan had a 29 percent approval rating among Democrats in 1984. During his first year in office, Donald Trump had 83 percent approval among Republicans, but only 8 percent among Democrats (Jones 2018). As much as we may dislike members of the opposing party, we dislike their elected representatives even more.

Although there are numerous explanations for this increasing political intolerance, most scholars point to a lack of exposure to opposing political viewpoints (Mutz 2002; Badger and Chokshi 2017). For a number of reasons, people are less likely to hear opinions that they disagree with, and when they do, they often come in the form of caricatures. Americans increasingly live around people that share their political worldview, where large cities are populated with liberals, while rural areas are dominated by conservatives. Even when people do associate with ideologically diverse groups, they tend to avoid discussing political topics because they are afraid of emotional conflicts (Mutz 2002; Pew Research Center 2014). Furthermore, diversification of the American news media has allowed Americans to get news from ideologically-consistent sources, while sheltering themselves from opposing arguments (Stroud 2011). For all of these reasons, many Americans rarely come into contact with facts and arguments that oppose their beliefs.

The best way to reduce political anger and hostility is for people to learn the arguments and values underlying opposing opinions. One way that learning opposing arguments lowers political hostility is by challenging the stereotypes we have about members of opposing political groups. Much of the animosity we feel toward opposing political groups results from negative stereotypes about why they hold their opinions. Research in social psychology suggests that people believe that members of social out-groups act in more stereotypical ways than members of in-groups (Judd et al. 1991). For example, when it comes to assistance for the needy, liberals tend to see conservatives as heartless, while conservatives see liberals as bleeding hearts (Farwell and Weiner 2000). Likewise, partisans often believe that members of the opposition are ideologically extreme (Brady and Sniderman 1985; Sherman et al. 2003; Ahler 2014). These negative stereotypes can lead people to see their political opponents as more “evil” than they actually are (Sabatier et al. 1987).

Hostility also stems from how people explain why other people disagree with them. Without an awareness of opposing arguments, people tend to attribute disagreement to negative causes, such as ideological bias, ignorance, self-interest, lying, or some ulterior motivation (Kennedy and Pronin 2008). For example, Reeder and colleagues (2005) found that people were more likely to attribute negative motives to George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq when they disagreed with his decision. Moreover, people are less willing to negotiate or seek compromise when they believe the opposition is somehow biased in their thinking (Kennedy and Pronin 2008). To some extent, animosity toward opposing groups results from misperceptions of their policy positions and motivations.

Learning opposing arguments reduces political hostility by helping us understand the actual reasons that people hold different beliefs and opinions. The more we learn why people disagree with us, the less likely we are to attribute disagreement to negative motivations or stereotypes about members of opposing groups. In other words, learning the actual arguments of opposing partisans helps us realize that their opinions are based on reasonable perspectives. According to the contact hypothesis, increased exposure to other groups can reduce prejudice by challenging negative stereotypes (Allport 1954). Learning about other cultures and viewpoints can increase tolerance by focusing attention on shared values and similarities across different social groups (Pettigrew and Tropp 2006; Kennedy and Pronin 2008). Furthermore, Ahler (2014) found that people were more likely to hold moderate opinions on policy issues after they learned that aggregate opinions were not as polarized as they thought. In short, learning the actual opinions and arguments of the opposition can help us be more tolerant of, and less angry toward, people who disagree with our political views.

The overall purpose of this book is to reduce political hostility by helping you understand the real sources of political disagreements. This book is composed of four parts, with Part I being very different than the following three. In the first part of the book, I make a case for political tolerance by arguing that all of our opinions are potentially “biased” by our backgrounds, personalities, cognitive biases, news sources, and discussion partners. In Chapter 2, I argue that many of our opinions are a product of the environments we were born into and the personalities we inherited. Too often people look at political issues as having one correct answer or solution, but that is rarely the case in politics. Instead, whether a policy is good or bad depends on an individual’s values, beliefs, and position in society. The purpose of Chapter 2 is to help you understand that the best policy often depends on one’s perspective. To that end, Chapter 2 discusses the sources of political disagreement, including personality, personal experiences and framing. Instead of disliking someone for holding different opinions, it is more logical to attribute disagreement to differences of perspective that naturally result from being different people and living different lives. From this perspective, disagreement is not something to be avoided, but instead something to be embraced because it provides an opportunity to learn the perspectives of other people.

In Chapter 3, I explain why we often do not think about politics objectively. Instead, we are all potentially biased by our preferences and perspectives on the world. Through a process called motivated reasoning, people process new information in a way that allows them to hold opinions that promote their goals (Kunda 1990; Taber and Lodge 2006). Since there is no way to know for certain that your opinions are not biased, it makes sense to hold beliefs with less certainty, and to seek to broaden our perspectives by understanding the opinions of others. The chapter begins with an overview of motivated reasoning and its consequences for American politics, and continues with a discussion of some ways you can guard yourself against motivated reasoning.

The purpose of Chapter 4 is to explain how the news media have the potential to help people learn opposing arguments, but only if they choose to challenge their opinions. On the one hand, partisan media allow people to isolate themselves in echo chambers where they rarely hear opposing arguments (Sunstein 2001; Cook 2010; Stroud 2011). These partisan media echo chambers can increase political hostility by furthering misunderstandings about why people disagree (Levendusky 2013; Smith and Searles 2014). On the other hand, people can get news from a variety of liberal, conservative, and mainstream news outlets, which can simulate productive political discussion (Smith 2017). Whether the media increase or decrease political hostility depends on what particular sources people choose. In Chapter 4, I discuss the role of the news media in promoting political discussion, why partisans think the media are politically biased, and how both partisan and mainstream media affect political hostility.

The first part of the book concludes with Chapter 5, which helps facilitate more productive dialogue about political and social problems. For a variety of reasons, people often have trouble engaging in civil discussion of controversial issues. While some are no doubt afraid of getting angry, many avoid discussions because they do not want to upset those who hold opposing views (Mutz 2002). The purpose of Chapter 5 is to address some of the common factors leading to uncivil discussions, and to provide tips to facilitate civil, informed, and productive discussion of contentious issues. Hopefully, this chapter will allow you to talk about politics without angering others or getting angry yourself.

In the remainder of the book, each chapter discusses the main arguments surrounding a political issue. The topics for these chapters were carefully selected because they provide specific examples of larger controversies in American politics. In each chapter, I present a brief historical background of the issue and then explain how each side is linked to competing values that most Americans share. The key point is that each individual holds numerous values that are relevant to political issues, but those values often conflict when put into practice. Unfortunately, we often think of issues in terms of one set of values and considerations, without considering other potentially relevant values that might apply to the same issue. Once we come to understand how our own conflicting values are tied to the same issue, we may become more accepting of other people who hold different opinions. The purpose of the issue chapters is to expose readers to the rationales behind opposing perspectives, which hopefully reduces animosity toward those that disagree.

For Part II of the book, the chapters focus specifically on issues of taxing and spending. Chapter 6 presents a debate over the merits of expanding the Medicare program to cover all Americans. I chose this topic because it is an example of the larger debate over health care, which is wide-ranging and complex, as it involves a variety of issues including: taxes, personal debt, hospitals, treatment options, prescription drugs, mental health, reproduction, contraception, and end-of-life decisions. At its most basic level, the key questions in the health care debate are whether health care is a right, and whether health care is better run by the government or the for-profit insurance industry. Chapter 7 debates whether college tuition should be free for all Americans. The debate over free college involves competing values that most people hold, such as equality of opportunity, personal responsibility, and a desire to reduce government inefficiencies. Chapter 8 also addresses questions of government waste, but looks at the military instead of higher education or health care. Specifically, Chapter 8 debates whether we should increase spending for the military, which involves competing perspectives on foreign policy and government spending.

Part III of the book focuses on social policies that deal with questions of personal freedom, federalism, racial equality and constitutional rights. Chapter 9 addresses a very prominent issue in current politics: the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes. The debate over legalizing marijuana is an excellent example of the larger debates over personal freedoms and the arguments concerning state versus federal power. The topics of civil rights and racial injustice are discussed in Chapter 10, which debates the merits of race-based affirmative action in college admissions. Chapter 11 presents opposing arguments surrounding a guest worker program for illegal immigrants. The immigration debate is a perennial issue in American politics, but it is often difficult to discuss because of its racial undertones. To conclude Part III, Chapter 12 presents a debate over campus carry laws, which allow people to carry concealed weapons on college campuses. The debate over campus carry is an excellent example of the larger debate over gun control because it involve...