What's Wrong with Polarization?

In the early 1990’s, famed philosopher Francis Fukuyama predicted the “end of history.” According to this sage, all the messiness of political debate and ideology would vanish. Instead, a new “paradise” of globalist capitalism would replace the old political debates that had plagued the last century. This prophecy was soon adopted by the entire establishment, right and left in every country in the world. With such fine leaders as Tony Blair taking the helm of parties across the West, all ideological differences in political parties began to go away. It looked like Fukuyama was turning out to be right after all. Yet the globalist elite was shocked with a rude awakening. Over the last eight years voters on the right and the left have expressed their dissatisfaction with globalism and have demanded their political parties actually stand for something other than a mess of recycled centrist slogans.

"What they call polarization, I call actual ideas. It is a sign of a healthy and vibrant democracy that people disagree and are willing to voice those disagreements. "

For the centrist establishment, this is deeply worrying. And so they have adopted as their cause du jour, the fight against “polarization.” All moderate commentators, liberal and conservative, now seem to lament how their respective voters have “turned towards the extremes” and discuss how to bring them back to their centrist “realism”. They argue that everything from the Tea Party to the movement in support of Bernie Sanders leads to a climate of radicalization and sloganeering instead of a place where people can rationally discuss issues. And they see the fact that many are not afraid to take strong positions, either about shutting down the government or single payer healthcare, as signs of stubbornness. Again and again they lament, crying in their soup about “partisan politics” and asking what can be done.

What I ask is, why should we do anything? What they call polarization, I call actual ideas. It is a sign of a healthy and vibrant democracy that people disagree and are willing to voice those disagreements. Whether it’s about the economy, immigration, environment or social issues, vital questions that confront any country should be discussed seriously. People should stand up and argue because we cannot allow such questions to be decided by shadowy technocrats who all agree with each other from the start. It is a sign of hope that enough men and women care about these questions to voice their beliefs. And there is nothing wrong with demanding that political parties actually have values and stand for those values. There is nothing wrong with wanting the right to be truly conservative and the left to be truly progressive.

Exeter is no stranger to these debates. This campus counts an active Communist Club among its many political groups. But Exeter is a perfect example of how strong politics can also lead to real discourse. No one here is afraid to express what they believe. Men and women at the recent lunch with self described “Catholic social conservative” Ross Douthat certainly did not share his views. Yet both Douthat and those speaking with him were polite, civil yet still fervent in every one of their convictions. Likewise in other political debates I have observed there have been multiple people who strongly disagree. Yet the discussion has never degenerated into name calling. Exeter can show us that those who argue that strong convictions are a problem for democracy are purely and simply wrong.

Now of course, sometimes strong opinions go too far, leading to violence and extremism. This does have to be taken into account. And of course compromise is also necessary in order to actually get things done. But this excessive fear of “radicalism” and “polarization” is misplaced.