Portland State Magazine Fall 2021

FALL 2021 // 5 RICHARD CLUCAS Professor of Political Science, College of Urban and Public Affairs MARC S. RODRIGUEZ Professor of History, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences BARBARA TINT Professor of Conflict Resolution and Political Psychologist, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences POLITICAL SCIENTISTS often trace the history of political polarization in modern America to President Lyndon B. Johnson’s decision to support the Civil Rights Movement. After Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, Southern white conservatives began to flee the Democratic Party, making it more liberal and the Republican Party more conservative. In subsequent years, political leaders took positions that intensified the divide, from the Republican Party’s strategy to appeal to white Southern voters and blue-collar workers to the Democratic Party’s embrace of more liberal positions on national defense and social issues, such as abortion. Profound economic, social, religious and demographic differences have also emerged between urban and rural America. Urban areas tend to be more affluent, better educated, more ethnically diverse and less religious than rural areas. They also tend to have larger and more complex economies.These differences have created profoundly different perspectives on society and politics. Moreover, studies have found that Americans have become more ideologically consistent in their policy preferences.The result is that there are two Americas, one urban and liberal and the other rural and conservative. With leaders taking positions intensifying the divide and the public itself deeply split, it makes compromise difficult. It is not just that Americans disagree on policy solutions. Rather, they disagree on what the problems actually are and on the proper role of government. FOR THOSE who remember broadcast television and daily newspapers like I do, you remember a world where there were far fewer news sources. Most journalism work functioned within the boundaries of the “fairness doctrine,” which required programs to offer differing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, until 1987. Newspapers and TV news had journalistic standards. The loss of that and the advent of the internet changed everything.Those looking to polarize can narrow their audience using a huge platform aided by social media companies. Everyone with a cell phone is now “Press” and the echo chamber has replaced balanced discussion. Gerrymandering made things worse. Republicans could ignore moderate voices and so could urban Democrats. The middle ground fell out of politics. Many academics called on states to use nonpartisan or bipartisan redistricting commissions to create competitive districts to little avail. Elected officials often sounded unhinged to those on the opposite side of the political divide in ways that would have shocked Republican and Democratic elected officials from, say, the 1980s. It may be time for a new “fairness doctrine” and the regulation of social media platforms as publishers and, of course, bipartisan or nonpartisan redistricting commissions. At many levels, Americans of all races, ethnicities and political affiliations often have more in common than they think they do. If only they knew it. WHILE OUR beliefs may seem more polarized, underneath that polarization, our deeper values and needs are often more aligned than we think. I see over and over how seemingly opposed parties are driving toward the same need. For example, a need for security may lead some to pursue climate change policy and others to work to preserve the coal industry. Our core needs for identity, security, belonging, meaning, acknowledgment and justice are typically at the root of even the most seemingly extreme beliefs or behaviors. Increased polarization is also fueled by misinformation spread through social media. Facts rarely change our beliefs, which are rooted in long held perceptions, strong emotions and affiliation with our like-minded peers. As polarization grows, we are less likely to naturally encounter or seek out those whose beliefs are different from our own, further increasing the chasm between us. With such profound identity issues such as race, gender and sexual orientation on the table, differing perceptions become threats to other people’s existence. Our motivation to separate is enhanced as fear, anger and real power imbalances send us scurrying to our corners. Education is essential in addressing this by cultivating the ability to think critically, fostering the skills for civil discourse across differences, and the conviction to understand (not necessarily agree with) multiple perspectives. Much of what divides us is learned, and therefore learning is a necessary tool to create stronger bridges between us. Have a question you’d like to ask Portland State’s faculty? Email psumag@pdx.edu faculty voices UNCIVIL DISCOURSE What has contributed to political polarization in the U.S. and how has that affected our ability to compromise? ILLUSTRATIONS BY BRETT FORMAN