upworthy

partisanship

Political polarization is out of control. It doesn't have to be this way.

What I'm going to share here may well be futile, and many people who need to hear this message and take it to heart probably won't. But America is at a precipice we've been hurtling toward for years, and if we don't do something now to slow the momentum, I fear we'll soon find ourselves plummeting over a proverbial cliff, one and all. It's worth an attempt to pull us back from the brink.

We all know that political polarization in the U.S. is reaching a fever pitch. What many people don't seem to recognize is how they individually play a role in it, especially those who are adamant that the "other side" is to blame for the division. As a lifelong political independent, it's been terrifying to watch my fellow Americans become more and more entrenched in hyper-partisanship, seemingly unaware of how they themselves are contributing to the problem, simply by allowing themselves to be pulled further into the partisan binary.

left, right, politics, partisanship, political ideology We can't divide America into "left" and "right." Photo credit: Canva

Democrats say Republicans are the problem. Republicans say Democrats are the problem. The vast majority of us absentmindedly use black-and-white ideological terminology that line up with our political parties to describe our fellow Americans—liberal or conservative, left or right, red or blue—as if 342 million people fit neatly into two political/ideological boxes. As a result, many Americans have found a home and an identity in those boxes, and unfortunately, some have built them into fortresses from which to shoot at the other side—figuratively and literally.

But no matter how people feel about one box or the other, neither of them is really the problem that brought us here. The problem is the premise that they are built on, which is that there are two opposing sides in the first place. It was inevitable that partisanship in a two-party system would eventually lead to an intractable division featuring extreme, binary thinking pushed by those who benefit from that polarization. The "other side" isn't just different, it's depraved. The “other side" isn't just misguided, it's malicious. The "other side" isn't just wrong, it's evil. This kind of thinking is a feature, not a bug.

george washington, party politics, two-party system, farewell address, partisanship George Washington tried to warn us about the perils of partisanship. Giphy

George Washington tried to warn us about this in 1796 when he said that the "spirit of party" was America's "worst enemy" and would eventually lead us to our demise. We're right there, right now. Partisanship has been fully weaponized by those seeking and wielding power, pitting Americans against Americans, convincing them that the "other side" isn't just wrong, but evil. ("But the other side really is evil!" you might be thinking. Thank you for proving the point. The "other side" says exactly the same thing.) The walls of those political and ideological boxes have gotten so high and so thick that we've lost the ability to see one another's humanity.

Many things have gone into how we got here, of course, and there's plenty of blame to be tossed around. But instead of finger pointing when we talk about our polarization problem, what if we were to look inward and own our own individual part in it, whatever that might be?

I would love to invite every American of every persuasion to take a pause, zoom out, and honestly engage with these self-reflection questions:

Do I tend to label people as liberal/left or conservative/right based on what I know about their beliefs?

Do I assume a certain political party affiliation based on what someone looks like/how they dress/where they live?

Do I describe states and cities as "blue" or "red" and make judgments about those places based on those labels?

Do I use generalized terms like "the left" or "the right" to describe large swaths of the American population?

Does the media I watch or listen to speak in those binary terms? Is one used positively and one used negatively?

politics, political divide, polarization, division, party politics Partisanship is divisive in its very nature.Photo credit: Canva

Do I check multiple sources to find what's true before I react or form an opinion about something I see on social media?

Do I seek out a variety of commentary to genuinely try to understand different perspectives?

Do I contact my legislators when I want to see a change in policy, or do I just argue with people on social media about it?

Do I recognize when people are debating in an effort to seek truth and when they're using rhetorical tricks to "win" an argument?

Am I spending more time engaging with people online than I am in real life?

Do I pay more attention to the extreme voices on the political spectrum than to the moderate ones?

Am I aware of how social media algorithms affect what I see and am exposed to?

Do I see how the extreme element of the "side" I most align with is being used to paint my political persuasion in a negative light?

Do I see how the same thing is being done with the extreme element on the other "side"?

Do I acknowledge when someone from my "side" shares misinformation? Do I call it out?

misinformation, b.s., fake news, falsehood, calling out There''s b.s. all over the political spectrum. Giphy

Do I think of a large portion of my fellow Americans as enemies or adversaries? Why do I view them that way?

Do I want to see my fellow Americans as enemies or adversaries? How can I see them differently?

Am I suggesting we stop using labels like left/right, liberal/conservative, etc. altogether? As much as possible, yes. These labels barely help us understand one another anymore—most often they are used to stereotype people or to take one person's objectionable action and ascribe it to the entire "side." So much of our current situation is a result of the extreme generalization of Americans into two groups, when in reality, very few people actually think, believe, live, and act within the confines of however those group labels are defined. Most of us know this intellectually, of course, but it's so easy to be pulled by language to one extreme or the other in a polarized political climate, especially via social media.

That polarization is purposeful, by the way. Giving people a political identity and an "other side" to fight against is one of the easiest ways to gain political power. Unfortunately, it's also playing with fire. (And if you think only one party does it, think again. It's just much easier to spot when it's done by people we disagree with.)

We can't solve our problems using the same means by which they were created. We can't change the politics that weaponizes partisanship if we ourselves are furthering and fueling it with partisanized thinking and rhetoric. We can't respond to political and ideological extremism with more extremism, even if we think our extremism is justified. Literally every extremist thinks their extremism is justified. Black-and-white, us vs. them thinking is extremism. It's becoming so common, we're getting numb to it.

None of us is immune here—this stuff is designed to tap our most primal instincts—but we have to fight it in ourselves. When we feel a push or pull toward binary extremes (which is easily mistaken for believing we're on the righteous side of things) we can consciously pull ourselves back to a place where we see one another's humanity before everything else.

I'm not both-sidesing here or implying that there aren't any legitimate issues with any particular party/side/ideology. What I'm saying is that partisanized discourse has become a zero sum game and too many Americans are willingly being used as pawns in it. While we can't control what other people do, we can reflect on the part we as individuals play and dedicate ourselves to being part of the solution instead of contributing to the problem.

Of course, stepping away from political labels and partisanzied discourse won't instantly solve all of our issues as a nation. But if enough Americans refuse to play the partisan game and reject the binary rhetoric of left/right, liberal/conservative, red/blue, Democrat/Republican, perhaps we can help prevent the U.S. from plunging into the dark, dangerous chasm we've found ourselves at the brink of.

It's worth a shot, at least.

Before the 2016 presidential election season began, most American relationships looked like this.

Ah, to be in love. Photo via iStock.


Now, after nearly a year of wall-to-wall, 24/7 politics, here's what many of those same relationships look like:

Breaker one-nine? Photo by Cameron Strandberg/Flickr.

Yes, since the race for the White House kicked off in earnest, far too many romantic partnerships have gone down in flames — over an ill-timed assertion that Donald Trump actually has some good ideas; that Hillary Clinton is an evil, conniving, tax-and-spend liberal, corporate shill, crypto-conservative, secret socialist, liar, unredeemable she-demon whose one facial expression that one time disqualifies her from the presidency; or that John Kasich is strangely attractive in a median dad kind of way.

But it doesn't have to be that way!

Even if you're the world's biggest Ted Cruz booster and your significant other is the last remaining Martin O'Malley holdout, take heart! You can still make it work!

How do I know? There are couples all over this country doing it right now.

And I talked to some of them:

Pam and Bill Atkinson (top left), Rick Taft and Kristi Tollefson-Taft (top right), Bob Miller and Marilyn Cote Miller (bottom left), Rachelle Brady (bottom right). All photos used with permission.

Here are 13 of their secret tips for navigating a relationship with a partner who is so clearly, obviously, totally, 100% wrong about everything:

1. Find a common enemy.

Kristi Tollefson-Taft and Rick Taft. Photo by Kristi Tollefson-Taft, used with permission.

Longtime Obama supporter Kristi Tollefson-Taft told Upworthy that she used to chafe at her husband Rick's libertarian-conservative opinions until they both realized they'd rather listen to each other than the scream-ier voices from their respective parties.

"The loudest are the extremes from both sides. We talk about that a lot," Kristi said.

2. Don't drink the #haterade.

Marilyn Cote Miller and Bob Miller. Photo by Marilyn Cote Miller and Bob Miller, used with permission.

"I can disagree with somebody’s policy without taking it to the level of hate," Bob Miller told Upworthy. He, a longtime Republican, and his wife Marilyn, a Bernie Sanders supporter, almost never fight about politics despite differing on plenty of big issues.

The secret? They banned the word "hate" from their Tampa, Florida-area home — and aren't too proud to resort to bribery to enforce the embargo.

"My mother would often say, ‘I hate that actor’ or ‘I hate that ... anything,'" Marilyn said. "And Bob would say, ‘Jane, every time you say “hate,” I’m gonna charge you a quarter because we just don’t like the word.’ And so my mother started saying, ‘I strongly dislike…’ We did get her to stop using the word hate!"

3. Recognize that not agreeing on everything can actually be kind of fun and interesting sometimes.

No opinions lightly held among meerkats. Photo by Wensbos/Pixabay.

While the Millers debated the pros and cons of Obamacare along with the rest of the country, they never really came to a consensus — and they prefer it that way.

"How we actually resolved it is: We don’t resolve it," Marilyn said. She explained that not always seeing eye-to-eye has been a positive force in their relationship.

"I read a quote years ago. Years and years ago. Maybe 30 years ago. And I had it on my refrigerator forever, and it says, ‘If two people always agree, one of them isn’t thinking.’ And I love it," Marilyn said.

4. Designate a "politics-free zone" in your house. Even if it's the whole house.

Bill and Pam Atkinson. Photo by Bill and Pam Atkinson, used with permission.

That's what Pam and Bill Atkinson of Bloomington, Illinois, did — initially so they could have their (mostly Democrat-leaning) friends over without everyone going home angry.

"They don’t want to hear me be correct so much, being a Republican," Bill, a Donald Trump supporter, joked to Upworthy.

Pretty soon, the couple, who, according to Pam, disagree on "most everything," realized it was a good rule to abide by all the time. So they designated their whole house a "politics-free zone."

"We just don’t like to argue," Bill said.

5. If you do wind up debating each other, have a sense of humor about it.


Kennedy v. Nixon. Photo by United Press International/Wikimedia Commons.

Not liking to argue, however, doesn't prevent the Atkinsons from, well ... arguing. No more than 90 seconds into our conversation, the couple started going back and forth about the economic impact of a local prison.

"See! This is how it starts, and then it just goes downhill from there," Pam said, laughing.

Everyone seemed delighted, and no one's feelings appeared hurt. Sense of humor? Check.

6. On election nights, do something besides watch the news.

Photo by Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images.

Contrary to popular belief, there is no law requiring couples to stay home every Tuesday during primary season staring at their 24-hour news network of choice while making snide comments under their breath at one another.

Lucky for the Atkinsons, they realized this early on and decided it wasn't healthy for their relationship.

“Instead of staying home [on Super Tuesday] and watching the news or watching something, we’re gonna go to the Normal Theater to go see ‘The Quiet Man,'" Bill said.

7. You don't need to tell each other who you're voting for.

Clinton photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images. Trump photo by Rhona Wise/Getty Images.

Not only do Pam and Bill Atkinson rarely talk politics at home, but Pam has resolved to never, ever tell Bill who she's voting for.

It's so important to her that she would not reveal her choice for this article — even after Bill offered to leave the room.

"She never tells me. Even when it comes to presidential elections, she won’t tell me!" Bill said.

8. If you have to tease each other, make sure it's actually loving, not pretend-loving-but-actually-snarky.

"THIS IS HOW I EXPRESS MY AFFECTION DO YOU LOVE IT?!" Photo via iStock.

"The only thing I’ve said, and I posted it on Facebook, was that I used my vote to cancel out his," Pam said, laughing again.

9. Frame your political discussions as something you do together as a couple.

"We’ve been doing a lot of surmising, and political analyzation and sociological and psychological analyzation of the country at the moment," Kristi Tollefson-Taft said.

"Oh, I got a good one, Carl. Grass. Yay or nay?" Photo by nuzree/Pixabay.

The Tafts said they try hard not to impose their own beliefs on their children and prefer to teach them to think and talk critically about politics — and to always question their own biases.

"It became very clear that we need to tell them that there are numerous opinions on subjects and they should have, in their toolbox, ways to make their own judgments," Kristi said.

10. Make sure to remind yourself that your partner's politics are not necessarily the most important aspect of who they are.

Photo by DonkeyHotey/Flickr.

"My first marriage, I was married to somebody who talking politics [with] was like preaching to the choir, and that marriage didn’t last," Pam Atkinson recalled. "So I came to the realization that politics is not the end-all, be-all of a relationship."

It's a sentiment all the couples I spoke to shared.

“If you talk about a relationship, if the only thing you disagree on is politics, I’d say...” Bob Miller began.


"...we’re doing pretty good," Marilyn continued, finishing his sentence without missing a beat.

11. If the relationship can't work because your politics are too different, there's no shame in that.

Photo via iStock.

Rachelle Brady, a Bernie Sanders supporter, told Upworthy she was shocked when she found out her boyfriend was planning to vote for Donald Trump but that trying to change his views, ultimately, did more harm than good to the relationship.

"What that did was prevent me from actually loving him where he was as a person without trying to impose my expectations on him," Brady said.

She and her boyfriend eventually called it quits over what Brady described as a conflict of values. Brady believes ending things freed her to not only "live what she believes in," but to engage her ex in a more open and honest way.

"That type of perspective has made it possible for us to move forward in our relationship. So, it changed form, but we still have a relationship," Brady said.

12. Always assume your partner has good intentions, even if their opinions make you want to scream out an open window.

"I know you're just batting my face incessantly because you care, not because you want to scratch my eyeballs out." Photo by Prskavka/Wikimedia Commons.

The trick to a healthy political argument in a relationship, according to the Tafts, is always assuming your partner is coming from a good place no matter how much you might want to handcuff them to a chair and force them to watch Rachel Maddow (or Bill O'Reilly) until they get it, dammit.

"The secret sauce, in my mind, is recognizing and respecting that we can be different and not sitting in judgment of that difference," Rick Taft said.

13. Most importantly, never lose sight of what really matters most.

Photo by Bill and Pam Atkinson, used with permission.

"Different people are going to believe different things, and you know what? That’s OK," Rick Taft said.

"Our relationship is built on much more than our political point of view," Bob Miller said. Marilyn added: "It’s respect for each other, and it’s love."


"The fact that [Bill's] wrong in his political beliefs doesn’t make me love him any less," Pam Atkinson said.

If all else fails, just remember that in only eight months' time, you won't be arguing about politics anymore.

Photo by Chris Denny/Geograph.uk.

You'll be arguing about whether to buy a house in Canada instead.

True
Open Primaries

The primary system we use to choose candidates in the United States is broken, but there's a proven way to make it better.

A tiny fraction of possible voters get to choose who is actually running for office. It's what happens in most state and federal elections across the country; if you're a registered Republican, you get to vote in the primaries for that party. Democrat? Same.

But what if you're among the more than 40% of voters (and half of all millennials) who are independent?

In many states, you have to actually register as a member of a party in order to vote in the primary.


If registering as a member of a party you don't necessarily agree with on many issues rubs you the wrong way, join the club.

Image of the George W. Norris chamber via Nebraska Legislature.

Are there any solutions to this problem?

Some states, like Nebraska, have taken a different approach — and it's working much better.

John Opdycke, the president of Open Primaries, explained in a recent Atlantic interview, how this alternative system truly breaks the mold.

"[The primaries] don't just determine party nominees," he said. "They determine the shape and the tenor and tone of the campaign, the issues that are on the table, the coalitions that are on the table."

How so? Let's explore 3 ways they do that.


1. Open primaries, where anyone can vote for any candidate regardless of party registration

It means that candidates have to appeal to all voters, not simply the ones in their party, to end up on the final ballot.

This leads to...

2. A general election ballot without party affiliation where voters choose between the top two candidates.

It also means that the people get things they want accomplished by their lawmakers — despite political affiliations of the parties. In the case of Nebraska, a legislature comprised of 35 Republicans, 13 Democrats, and 1 independent accomplished a raise in the minimum wage, immigration reform, abolishing the death penalty, and raising the gas tax, among other things.

Imagine that happening in a state where the primaries are like they are for most of the country?

3. A non-partisan unicameral legislature where politicians work together

A unicameral legislature is something that rather flips the traditional voting narrative on its head, and it's opening some eyes. Definitively, unicameral legislature means one chamber of house, rather than two divided ones.

With no formal party alignments or caucuses, it allows coalitions to form issue by issue. This way, every bill gets an open and public committee hearing regardless of the member's party status.

GIF from Open Primaries/Why America Needs Nonpartisan Elections.


Here's a short clip with some sound reasons why it's working for Nebraska.