4 Myths About America’s Toxic Polarization Problem

Let’s face it: some people are skeptical of efforts to reduce toxic polarization and political contempt. 

We get it. When we see the political and cultural stakes as very high, it’s only natural to be skeptical of messages aimed at helping us get along better. Even some who agree on the importance of this work may see it as a “side quest” — a nice thing, sure, but something that can wait until we tackle more immediate dangers. 

We need to persuade more people, from across the political spectrum, why this work is vitally important — how it’s the source of many other problems that upset and threaten us. We must persuade politically passionate people that they can work towards their goals while also working on reducing political contempt. 

There are a few common myths about polarization that underlie a lot of objections to this work. Here are four: 

1. “It’s normal for Americans to disagree. The problem isn’t serious.”
2. “We should be polarized when the other side is so horrible.” 
3. “Reducing polarization means asking people to compromise with extremists.”
4. “We need our animosity to defeat the ‘bad guys.’”

Let’s look at what these myths are missing. 

Myth #1: “It’s normal for us to disagree. People overstate the problem of our divides.” 

It’s entirely normal for us to disagree on issues — and even to strongly and passionately disagree. What’s unhealthy and dangerous is the contempt and fear that more and more of us have for people on the “other side.” (This is sometimes referred to as “affective polarization” — with “affect” referring to our emotions.) Our contempt and fear contribute to a self-reinforcing cycle of anger and hatred. 

Learn more: Read our piece “Isn’t it normal for us to disagree?”

Myth #2: “We should be polarized when the other side is so horrible.” 

It’s rational and expected for us to have serious concerns about and judgements of our political opponents. However, we must see that many of us have very distorted and overly pessimistic views of the “other side.” Our distorted views contribute to the toxicity of our divides. Many of us say and promote untrue, biased, and inflammatory insults about our political opponents, which makes them understandably angry, and in turn they are more likely to do the same to us, and so on.

As we often say, one can be a committed member of this movement while also believing, “The other side is much worse.” But it’s important to see that our distorted views of each other result in many of us contributing to our divides — often without even knowing we’re doing so.

Learn more: Read our piece “Through a distorted lens: How perceptions of the ‘other side’ drive toxic division.”

Myth #3: “Reducing polarization requires people to compromise with extremists.”

Some people think that depolarization and bridge-building work are about valuing “unity” and “getting along” above all else — putting “peace” over “justice,” or that we and others in this space just want everyone to “meet in the middle,” no matter how unreasonable one group’s political position may be.

But that’s not true. We are encouraging an examination of a) how we view our political opponents and b) how we engage with them. As stated, many of us are just plain wrong about what the “other side” believes and what motivates them; this can lead to inaccurate ideas of what compromise with “them” will look like. 

Also, in disagreement, there’s more room for compromise than people see at first — there’s much more common ground than people tend to expect. It’s often possible to arrive at creative compromises that make many people happy (or at least less unhappy). 

Learn more: Read our piece “You want us to compromise with extremists?”

Myth #4: “We need our animosity to defeat the ‘bad guys’”

Many think the work of reducing toxic polarization is at odds with political activism. The thinking goes, “We need to be polarized because our political opponents are so bad.” Or: “We need our animosity to defeat the bad guys.” 

Those instincts make a lot of sense. When we see harm being done by our political opponents on various political and cultural issues, we become understandably angry. 

But the problem isn’t political passion or anger; it’s contempt. When we engage in contemptuous, insulting, and non-compromising ways with our opponents, they’re more likely to do the same to us. Through our dark views of our opponents, we help drive the vicious cycle of conflict. 

For these reasons, depolarizing approaches can be powerful tools of political activism. One can be politically passionate and active while taking depolarizing approaches that minimize pushback to one’s cause and do more to help persuade others. 

Learn more: Read our piece “Political passion is not at odds with depolarization”

Help us spread the word

We must persuade more Americans of the importance of this work. One way you can help is to share this piece on social media. 

Let’s spread the word about the true goals and nature of this work, so we can help apply pressure on the more influential people among us — journalists, pundits, educators, leaders — to join the movement for a healthier, less toxic society. 

Want to stay in the loop on endeavors to reduce toxic divides? Sign up for our newsletter.