How Do We Move Forward as a Nation?
By Maxine Park ’22
A global pandemic. A national cry for systemic justice. A tumultuous scuffle for the American presidency. Environmental, emotional, and political uncertainties have only further divided our country in a time when we most need the opposite. In his acceptance speech last week, President-elect Joe Biden pledged to be a leader for all American people following one of the most controversial American presidential races in history. He expressed his desire to unite Americans and lead the United States with intentionality and integrity.
“We will lead not only by an example of our power,” he declared, “but by the power of our example.”
What kind of example do the American people want to be?
Over the course of his presidency, President Trump has capitalized on people’s fears and uncertainties. He draws support by offering a scapegoat—an ethnic group, a foreign country, a political leaders—towards which they can direct their anger and fear. Through deliberate and dangerous manipulation of our psychology, he brings people together by driving others further apart.
But President Trump is not solely responsible for America’s disharmony.
As election fervor burgeons on social media, so do expressions of impassioned partisan outrage. Trump supporters are “racist” and “uneducated”. Biden supporters are “elitist” and “socialist”. It is precisely this mindset on which polarization thrives. Insults do not lead to persuasion. Accusations do not lead to reconciliation. The natural reaction to denigration is resistance.
The media industry monetizes division. It is not surprising that liberals who watch news outlets that refer to Trump supporters as “idiots” and “foolish racists” have become comfortable doing the same, or that those who watch channels calling Biden “dishonest” and our voting process “rigged” believe the election was stolen from them. In times of uncertainty and fear, we find comfort in accusation. Our country’s media and leaders have become more focused on simply affirming polarized partisan attitudes than seeking avenues of unification.
The United States has become an example of a country that is unable to responsibly address conflict. It this how we want to lead the world?
Polarization is nothing new. But in the age of technology, the consequences of division and the ways we choose to address it are exacerbated. It is always easier to attack and complain about people who don’t agree with us than to understand their perspective.
As students at Exeter, we enjoy a position of privilege. We have the opportunity to learn from a diverse curriculum and student body. And with this privilege comes the responsibility to understand others and reconcile perspectives that we may not share—not to use our privilege to disparage people who do not have access to the same education and community.
How do we escape from our respective political echo chambers? One study published in Nature Human Behavior last year (1) may offer an answer. The authors analyzed millions of edits to Wikipedia’s articles on scientific, political, and social issues, each edited by individuals on a spectrum of ideological preferences. They found that polarized teams with ideologically diverse editors not only produced higher-quality articles, but also “engage[d] in longer, more constructive, competitive, and substantially focused but linguistically diverse” conversations than teams of people who shared similar views. Polarization may not be the issue, but rather the ways we choose to harness it. It is not enough to simply make yourself aware of opposing viewpoints. We need to actively seek conversations where we can disagree—we may not be able to convert our perspectives, but such conversation will produce understanding that is civilized, constructive, and informative for all parties involved.
By what example should America lead?
A country unified in the face of uncertainty.
A democracy driven by discussion and not division.