America Needs Couples Therapy (Part One): Historical Perspectives
The Current Predicament
Political polarization is nothing new for society. Humans have always been politically liberal/conservative, risk-tolerant/risk-averse, and spontaneous/calculated. What feels unique, and has been observed by many, is that fragmentation and division have increased, recognizable by average citizens and our elected officials' lack of acknowledging and validating the arguments of the opposing side's perspective. In essence, we haven't been living in a bipartisan era. Discourse seems to have intensified to the degree that merely expressing an opinion feels like social or career suicide.
While this is not a new phenomenon, it is new to us. Just as the pandemic was new to us, earlier generations of people have been exposed to the same fear of contagion, media hysterics, and residual physiological and psychological impacts of such periods.
This begs the question, with the gap of civil discourse widening, leaving little room for consensus, how did we get to this place? Also, what does it take to find and reclaim some common ground with space for civil discourse? In this article, I examine how we became more polarized, what this does to our psychological well-being, and how we might return to a place that might feel more mutually agreeable.
Historical Perspectives
Let us begin with how we have become polarized. As stated prior, there is a continuum of human behavior that usually leans into one of two camps. Historically speaking, when faced with an external threat, generally as a nation, we band together to defeat a common enemy (i.e., WWII). This increases a sense of nationalism that supports and encourages defining common values which are shared amongst the majority of the domestic citizenry.
When we lack a common enemy and culturally speaking, we become increasingly decadent and lackadaisical, we become more polarized, leading to, as a nation, internal conflict (i.e., the Weimar Republic and Golden Twenties periods of Germany). Economically speaking, these periods often involve spending more currency than what is being produced, resulting in the printing of money that drives up inflation, creating stagnation in spending and anxiety surrounding recession, all of which contain ingredients to a recipe for economic collapse. Additionally, there is a growing political divide within the nation that plays out within its citizenry and political structuring.1
Ray Dalio illustrates these types of cycles in his book The Changing World Order. In it, he argues that the United States' domination as the primary global superpower is about to be superseded by China due to the reasons listed in the previous paragraph. Dalio provides international historical examples of how other empires rose and eventually fell to foreign competitors due to internal struggles being unable to be resolved.2 Similarly, William Strauss and Neil Howe document the cyclical nature of internal national processes through the lenses of archetypal characterizations and intergenerational struggles in their books Generations and The Fourth Turning.
If you're looking for a more visual representation, look no further than the triptych oil painting 'The Garden of Earthly Delights' by Hieronymous Bosch. The first panel of Bosch's masterpiece depicts the Garden of Eden, uninterrupted, a place of peace and solace. The center panel then fast forwards through time to show the Garden being further populated with figures engaging in pleasurable activities with a sense of benevolent innocence. The final panel depicts Hell, full of tortured souls and cityscapes in a firey blaze. While the Christian imagery may certainly dissuade those with more agnostic or atheistic proclivities, the historical cycle of exhibiting civilization with a prosperous foundation, success, and affluence (or, at least the illusion of such) at its peak, followed by upheaval and unbridled conflict is undoubtedly intact.
While these historical analyses and artistic representations provide a certain validity to the platitude "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it," Dalio, Strauss, Howe, and Bosch's perspectives are speculative. While most of us would love to predict the future, and I suspect several of their predictions are likely to come true, we cannot solely rely upon such cosmic/spiritual explanations of history, comforting as they may be. History in one way, shape, or form may repeat itself; however, it is no guarantee.
In its present state, America is in the process of upheaval and unbridled conflict. If you want to say it feels like the country is going through Hell, according to Bosch, you probably aren't too far off. Polarization is frivolous at this stage. But how did it come to this?
First, let us go back to the founding of the United States, prior to it being widely recognized as such. While the nation's founding was no cakewalk for the colonialists who created settlements or the indigenous populations, a strong sense of idealism was attached to the country for newcomers calling it home. Early colonizers from Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Spain had different reasons for establishing their footholds in the Americas: trade routes/opportunities, spreading religion, fame, and fortune.
British colonizers, commissioned by King James I, maintained the most robust security by establishing the initial thirteen colonies. Succession from England provoked the American Revolutionary War, which subsequently led to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. As they say, the rest is history. Interestingly, author Seth David Radwell observes that the philosophical ideals that prompted the succession from England are the same ideals that are playing out today, resulting in our current predicament.
In Radwell's book, American Schism, he lays the philosophical groundwork that not only leads to America's early colonization but how two principal enlightenment ideals are still at play, impacting our trajectory to this day. Radwell argues that the two competing ideals that emerged from the Enlightenment were based in two camps: radicals believed that the only legitimate form of government was democracy, while moderates favored an aristocratic republic.3 While the classes of radical and moderate certainly do not correspond to modern America's cultural interpretation of the terms, one can at least observe that two foundational texts contain the ideals that we continue to reference today, namely the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence of 1776 contains many radical enlightenment ideals as it declares that "all men are created equal" and that each American shall be able to pursue "life, liberty, and happiness" and be endowed with the ability to own property. While Founder, drafter, and eventual Framer Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner, evoking befuddlement and seemingly running contrary to the radical ideals surrounding the tenet that "all men are created equal," early drafts show that Jefferson, despite his cognitive dissonance, viewed slavery as abominable and desired its abolishment.
Thus began the formal process of democratizing America. Naturally, this led to many concerns, particularly of the moderates. What if mobs of extremists were formed and turned against the government? There needed to be some level of protection for those who governed the people so that any law couldn't be so easily revoked, despite any strong sentiments. The Shay Rebellion, in which Daniel Shay effectively closed state courthouses in Massachusetts by leading a brigade of hundreds of armed men, ultimately galvanized the moderates, leading to the inspiration behind the formation of the Constitution.
Superseding the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution established supreme law over the states. While the first ten amendments certainly provided individuals with inalienable rights, amendments 11, 12, 16, and 21 secured governmental authority. In addition, amendments 12, 17, 20, 22, 25, and 27 described governmental processes (i.e., elections, term limits, pay, etc.); these amendments largely are related to limitations of acquired power. To much of the satisfaction of the moderates, the Constitution can only be changed or amended through prodigious legislative processes.
While radical enlightenment ideals ultimately won out, moderate enlightenment ideals ensured the retention of power and authority amidst incidences of national turmoil. It is important to note that these ideals do not necessarily correspond to a political party. Democrats and Republicans both retain these ideals within their respective parties and even within their individual selves. Think, for example, of the January 6, 2021, insurrection. While democrats were perhaps more vocal about this incident, Republicans (the same cannot be said for those embracing Trumpism) alike agreed that moderate ideals were under attack by a mob of conspiracy theorists who believed a fair election was stolen from them, making them holders of radical (undoubtedly in the most extreme meaning of the word) enlightenment ideals.
The enlightenment ideals create a natural push/pull dynamic in society and ultimately can contribute to its overall functioning. When one ideal is in a more elevated position, the opposing ideal gains traction. While Radwell accuses the Trump administration of pushing the moderate ideal to the extreme through cronyism and plutocracy (more on this later), and indeed I agree, it isn't an all-encompassing perspective.4
Democrats are currently pushing anti-meritocratic immigration, college admissions, and employment-based policies. In addition, once champions of the free speech movement, censorship normalization has increased. For example: consider the elevated corporate power of Big Tech companies such as Twitter (even with Elon Musk's purchase and subsequent restructuring) and Facebook (censoring speech, like lab leak theories), who donate systematically to the Democratic party. These companies heavily rely upon immigrants with H-1B visas to run their operations; it's perhaps not coincidental that many of these companies reside in Silicon Valley, where governmental policies support their functioning.5 Lastly, the party insisted on making Clinton their primary candidate, as opposed to the more populist Sanders, who captured the liberal populist rhetoric of Trump's conservative populist counterpart. Needless to say, cronyism exists on both sides of the aisle, and that moderate enlightenment ideals transcend party,
Political positions transcend parties as well. It's odd to think, but Bill Clinton's immigration policies oddly mirrored Trump's rhetoric during his campaigning and presidency, and George W. Bush sought to end the racial educational gap, now considered to be a liberal passion project. While the schism certainly can contribute to polarization, it still does not fully explain the present divide.
The emergence of populism is primarily brought on by the perception and actual experience of income inequality. While poverty in the United States is undoubtedly low at 11.5% in 2020, nowhere near its height in the 1950s at 22%.6, a growing, tiny minority of elites controls the vast majority of the country's wealth, increasing perceptions of unfairness and increased knowledge of income inequality.7 Ray Dalio, referenced earlier, states, along with Radwell and Thomas Piketty, author of Capital, that this contributes to increased sentiment toward populist viewpoints that now permeate our political system. In essence, populism is brought on by a growing awareness of the "haves,"; or those who are likely to pursue more moderate enlightenment ideals, and "have nots,"; those who are likely to take on more radical enlightenment ideals. To understand more of how populism contributes to the present state of polarization, we need to examine more of the psychology of the ideology.
Endnotes
1. Dalio, R. (2021). Principles for dealing with the Changing World Order: Why Nations succeed or fail. Avid Reader Press.
2. Dalio, R. (2021). Principles for dealing with the Changing World Order: Why Nations succeed or fail. Avid Reader Press.
3. Radwell, S. D. (2021). American schism: How the two Enlightenments hold the secret to healing our nation. Greenleaf Book Group Press.
4. Radwell, S. D. (2021). American schism: How the two Enlightenments hold the secret to healing our nation. Greenleaf Book Group Press.
5. Davis Hanson, V. (2022, September). The American affirmative-action regime. The New Criterion. Retrieved December 23, 2022, from https://newcriterion.com/issues/2022/10/the-american-affirmative-action-regime
6. Fay, B. (2021, October 12). Poverty in the United States. Debt.org. Retrieved December 21, 2022, from https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/poverty-united-states/#:~:text=In%20the%20late%201950s%2C%20the,low%20of%2010.5%25%20in%202019.
7. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press.