Want More Votes? Try Depolarization

Despite widespread support for reducing toxic politics in America — as shown by countless surveys — campaign rhetoric from leaders has consistently grown more toxic over the last few decades. Why? Many political strategists believe rhetoric aimed at stoking fear and anger works — that these messages increase support and donations. 

And they aren’t wrong — negative messages can work. For example, one study found messages aimed at provoking fear are twice as effective as messages that don’t. 

But are there other ways to win? Are there political strategies that don’t require amplifying our distrust and fear of each other and can also help win elections? 

Robb Willer and his Stanford colleagues studied the National Governors Association (NGA) “Disagree Better” campaign, which promotes civil discourse and bipartisan collaboration among politicians. Their findings were striking and challenged conventional wisdom. Not only did this campaign lower partisan hostility among viewers (an important result on its own!), but it also made people view the politicians involved more positively. 

In other words, politicians who engaged in more respectful, depolarizing dialogue gained favor with voters — even voters on the other side of the aisle.

Many of us assume that if politicians abandon toxicity and vitriol and embrace the high road, they’d risk alienating their supporters or looking weak. It can make instinctual sense that when politicians don’t lean into harsh moral judgment and us-versus-them rhetoric, they risk losing traction with their “base.” However, this research shows that the opposite is true. Approaches aimed at reducing toxicity and contempt can be good political strategy. This is a win for democracy.

The study isn’t public, but researcher Robb Willer discussed his findings at this NGA event in August:

There is, of course, nuance and complexity in these areas. For one thing, not everyone will respond the same way to depolarizing strategies. Some angry partisans may not appreciate political leaders taking more respectful approaches. But as we’ve often emphasized, political passion is not at odds with depolarizing and bridge-building approaches. A depolarizing approach can be a powerful, persuasive political tool — especially among moderative or on-the-fence citizens. 

We also want to emphasize that the most harmful rhetoric involves group-aimed insults (for example, a Democratic politician assigning malicious motivations to all Trump supporters). Political campaigns will continue to involve harsh and judgmental language, as they always have. Elections, at their best, draw clear differences between candidates, and sharp — even harsh — policy-based criticism is a powerful way to draw out those differences. But it’s important that political leaders avoid rhetoric that unnecessarily amplifies us-versus-them animosity.

Stanford research shows that building a healthier political landscape is good for both society and politicians, and that commitment to “disagreeing better” can benefit everyone.

Read more about the research by Willer and his team.

Want to stay in the loop about efforts to reduce political toxicity? Sign up for our newsletter.