top of page

Polarizing Politics

We’re a few days away from a Donald Trump presidency here in the United States. And it’s got me reflecting back on the last few months and the lead up to the election. Why are politics SO polarizing now? Something has changed over the last 10 years. I remember when neighbors displayed opposing party placards in their yards, and no one batted an eye. No one would judge their neighbor based on their choice. It was simply just that, a choice. It didn’t define the person. However, politics these days have become an identity game - you’re either on my side or you’re delusional and hateful. 


I might write multiple posts on political polarization, but an aspect I want to explore in this post is the widening partisan gap that we’ve started to see in the last decade. The identity game. The idea that you are either with me or hateful.. Why do people vote the way they do?  It has to be a more complex answer than hate, lack of education, ignorance. As Stephen Hawking said, “the greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.”


In Why We’re Polarized, author Ezra Klein states that “the act of choosing a party is the act of choosing whom we trust to transform our values into precise policy judgments across the vast range of issues that confront the country.”


Immigration, abortion, poverty, wealth distribution - you name it. When you vote, you are implicitly taking a stance on each of these. 


Understanding Decision-Making Frameworks:

A lot of political decision making comes down to what you believe is right or wrong. Do you believe more immigration is right for the country? Should the citizens of your country be given access to abortion? Should wealth be spread more evenly? And on it goes…


And when deciding what is right vs wrong, people have different frameworks for making decisions - it is not black and white, it is not one size fits all. There are 3 frameworks that people use to make decisions. Each framework is like a program we’ve been coded to run, shaped by culture, upbringing, and experience:


  • Individualistic - You see the world full of individuals (i.e. social unit is individual) with their own wants and needs 

  • Community-based - People are part of a joint community and any decision should be based on what works well for the community

  • Divinistic - People and their bodies are viewed as creations of God, and anything that violates this sanctity is wrong



Decision-Making Frameworks in Action:

The first step is understanding why people make decisions based on their framework. This in itself will make you empathize more instead of leading you to think - how could someone do this? Or how could someone possibly vote for this person? 


Going to a country like India shows you the ethic of community or ethic of divinity, which would make NO sense and would be disgusting to the average American with a deeply individualistic outlook. In traditional and rural India, wives serve dinner, they eat separately, and keep their heads covered. You don’t talk to servants or be overly grateful towards them. 


This makes sense within the community-based framework, where the unit that matters most is family, not the individual. As a result, the values that matter a lot more there are obeying the hierarchy, fulfilling your respective roles in the society, taking care of guests etc. 


Now is this right? Not necessarily, it definitely has its ugly side - It often leads to people being rude, and abusive. But each framework has its downsides.


Same with the ethic of divinity - that is pretty clear in conservative India too. People treat their body as if it’s a temple. They have tremendous self control. They don’t mix and mingle the outside, “dirty world” with the “holy” places such as homes, temples etc (you take off your shoes before entering). Again, this will seem wild to the average American. But it makes sense within the divinistic framework. 


Abortion Through Different Lenses:

I’m going to take a leap here and really throw myself out there. Abortion is a hotly contested topic in the US and to many (including myself), there is a clear, right answer. Abortion should be legal, access should be universal and a woman should have the right to control what to do with her own body.


But, as I stated earlier, I think when people take a stance on a particular issue, the rationale for why they believe their stance is right is more complex. Sure, there are some people who are truly hateful and ignorant. But I can’t buy that for every single person, or even the majority. And I can’t buy that for all the topics outside of abortion. 


Ok, so let’s put the decision-making frameworks in action:


  • Individualistic attitudes favor individual rights, decision-making, choice and autonomy. In that framework, each individual, each woman has rights over their own body and she is allowed to do what SHE wants to do with her body/life. So, as a result,  individualistic attitudes favor abortion access


Now the question is - in what world does restricting rights to abortion make sense?


  • If you have a community-based attitude, you are focused on the broader community, human life is the responsibility of the community, and restricting life is restricting growth of the community. Motherhood is also a role that is deemed central to the social fabric and fulfilling your roles is a key to these attitudes . Here, protecting the collective good is the focus.

  • Similarly, if you have a divinistic attitude, you are focused on purity, sanctity. From that perspective, people see life as a gift from a higher power, beginning at conception. So going against that process is wrong, is a violation


Having said all that…

The key with the above is everyone’s decision making framework could vary. And I have only covered decision making here - there are so many other factors that go into an individual’s political choice. Groupism, personal experiences, impact on day-to-day life - there’s a lot that goes into choosing a leader. By embracing this understanding, we can move closer to bridging divides and fostering meaningful dialogue—small steps toward a less polarized society.

Comentários


Got a question or feedback? Use the form below to get in touch.

Thank You for Your Message!

© 2024 Monk of Wall Street. All rights reserved.

bottom of page