Why We're Polarized

Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 2020

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Background

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Introduction-Chapter 2

Chapters 3-4

Chapter 5-Interlude

Chapters 6-7

Chapters 8-9

Chapter 10-Afterword

Key Figures

Themes

Index of Terms

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Tools

Beta

Discussion Questions

Chapters 3-4Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Chapter 3 Summary: “Your Brain on Groups”

The rationalizations for discrimination are similar regardless of the group being discriminated against. Drawing upon the research of social psychologist Henri Tajfel, Klein explains that there is a human instinct to view one’s own group with favor and outsiders with hostility. This we-they dichotomy is so deeply ingrained that it “operates independent of any reason to treat social relations as competition” (51). In experiments with boys, Tajfel demonstrated the strength of this instinct: He found that the boys would opt to reward their own group less in order to ensure that the gap between their rewards and the out-group’s rewards was bigger.

Humans evolved to exist in groups, which were necessary to survival. Exile from a group meant death. This instinct is thus embedded in human brains. Klein cites the example of sports fans, who want their team to win and make the team a part of their self-identity, even if players are traded or the team changes locations. Just like sports fans, partisans act to preserve the status of their group. They are not acting as citizens making deliberative policy choices. Elections exacerbate the team mentality, depicting the other party as the enemy and directing anger toward it, prioritizing feelings over thought. Furthermore, the most engaged citizens experience politics as group rivalry. Their votes are a form of self-expression and group identity against a common enemy.

President Obama doubted the reach of polarization and sought unity. Instead, he became a polarizing figure. Instead of other identities softening political ones, political identities are polarizing other ones. Partisanship has created a “mega-identity,” synthesizing of religion, race, ethnicity, gender, geography, and even favorite stores, a trend Klein identifies as new. When one identity is activated, all these identities are. Conflict is thus all the more threatening because of the aligned identities, as a threat to one becomes a threat to all. In contrast, a society with many points of division running in different directions is more stable and less likely to turn violent. Ironically, there is “only a weak relationship between how much a person identifies as a conservative or liberal and how conservative or liberal their views actually are” (73). It is about identity, and people will do anything to ensure that their group wins.

In 2010, 44% of Republicans and 33% of Democrats reported that they would be upset if their child married a member of the other political party. In 1960, the comparative numbers were 5% and 4%, respectively. An experiment also revealed that people valued partisanship over grade point averages in awarding academic scholarships.

Klein argues that policy differences and identity reinforce one another. He cites the example of immigration. As more Latinos/Latinas have joined the Democratic Party, for example, that party’s policies have become more pro-immigrant. Identity impacts people’s perception of the world as well as how they treat others.

Chapter 4 Summary: “The Press Secretary in Your Mind”

In December 2009, every Republican Senator deemed the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, which was part of the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare, unconstitutional. The concept of an individual mandate was first proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989 and was part of the Senate Republicans’ alternative to President Clinton’s healthcare proposal in 1993. Yet because the Democrats had gone from opposing to supporting the mandate, Republicans came to oppose it for group ends.

Klein cites experiments in which researchers found that reference group information takes precedence over policy content. For example, liberals would support harsh welfare policies if endorsed by Democrats, while conservatives would support generous policies if endorsed by Republicans. It is not that people lack enough information to select policies: They are not searching for the correct answer, but instead seeking to win the argument. For example, in one experiment, people who scored well on math tests suddenly lost that ability when interpreting statistics unfavorable to their positions on guns or climate change. The strongest effects are on people who pay close attention to politics. When answers threaten one’s group or standing within it, reasoning turns to rationalization. There is a high psychological and social price to pay for being in conflict with one’s group. For example, David Brooks, a conservative and journalist, spoke out against Trump and was shunned by former friends. To avoid social ostracization, people engage in what legal and psychology professor Dan Kahan labels “identity-protective cognition.” They subconsciously resist and deny facts that threaten their defining values and, in so doing, protect their identity and that of those they trust.

When the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, Republicans immediately filed lawsuits claiming it was unconstitutional. In the lower courts, Republican-appointed judges tended to agree, while Democratic-appointed judges did not. When it reached the Supreme Court, it survived in a 5-4 decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed by a Republican, upholding it. His reasoning avoided the main issue of contention about whether Congress had the authority to pass the law and said that it was constitutional because it was effectively a tax. Republicans felt betrayed by this ruling.

According to psychologist and author Jonathan Haidt, the role that reason plays in political arguments is akin to the job of White House press secretary: The goal is to defend the policy no matter what. In such motivated reasoning, the individual seeks to defend the group’s position. Klein notes that this leaves society at an “intellectual abyss.” As a journalist, Klein has worked to get people good information for the purposes of changing minds and making rational decisions. That model “falls to pieces” when political identities and interests take precedence over reasoning. Across a spectrum of issues, truth matters on one end and identities dominate on the other. Reasoning is most vulnerable when identities are threatened.

Chapters 3-4 Analysis

Citing academic research to bolster his claims, Klein grounds group identity in human psychology, noting that even when groups have extremely weak bonds, members are likely to favor one another and to discriminate against non-members. As partisan identities have strengthened, they are polarizing other identities, such as geographical ones, and, in so doing, threatening democracy. As division takes root, members of the other party are associated with the enemy; there is thus a loss of an American identity. The founders feared the influence of political parties precisely for this reason: They feared that party would take precedence over the whole or common good. They did not anticipate mass parties but condemned the notion of partisan interests being placed ahead of national ones.

Partisan Identity Threatens Democracy because people are unable or unwilling to engage in deliberative discourse. As Klein highlights, partisans are not open to the arguments or facts presented by their political opponents. Instead, they act as “press secretaries,” defending the positions of their own party. Conflict and exposure to arguments on the other side accentuate identities rather than furthering discourse and thus strengthening democracy. Indeed, those who open themselves to the arguments of the other side and speak out against their group are vilified. Klein cites David Brooks’s ostracism from his conservative friends after he condemned Trump. Later, Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney experienced similar condemnations. Such reinforcement of group loyalty leads to an Increase of Polarization in US Politics.

Klein notes how the quest to pass the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, exposes some of the Consequences of Polarization in the US System of Governance and highlights the breakdown in previous norms, such as transactional politics. Because Obama and the Democrats were in favor of the bill, all Republicans were against it. Even though the mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance was originally a Republican idea and had Republican support in the 21st century, once the mandate was included in a Democratic bill, Republicans attacked it as unconstitutional. No public option was included in the bill either, a fact that should have made the bill appealing to Republicans. Still, no Republicans voted in favor of the bill, even when the subsidies for the expansion of Medicaid would have benefited their constituents. The only reason that this bill passed is because the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate, which prevented the minority from filibustering it. In fact, the House had to pass the exact same version of the bill for it to become law. After the Senate voted for it, Scott Brown, a Republican, won Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat in an interim election. Had the bill been returned to the Senate for revisions, as normally happens, it would have been derailed. The Democrats in the House were not pleased with the compromises made in the Senate. However, they gave their assent, knowing it was the best that they could do. That willingness to accept compromise is evidence of The Differences Between Republicans and Democrats.