It’s no secret that political division is spreading across not just the Western world but across the globe. Identity politics, immigration disputes, racism/colorism, and many more topics divide groups internationally. One big reason that there is such political unrest is online echo-chambers. There is no shortage of right- and left-wing extremists who create their own cult followings in their corners of the internet. Additionally, politicians seem to have no interest in fixing this divide and further fuel it with divisive language and even more controversial policies. As political arguments devolve further into chaos, many are asking how we can bridge these gaps and tamp down the unrest that is rippling across the world. Is it possible to bring people together through asking deeper questions and learning to listen to opposing viewpoints?
Some groups have taken it upon themselves to try bringing people across the political aisle together through addressing hot topics and asking controversial questions. A notorious example of this is Jubilee’s series of debates that has earned quite a bit of backlash over the past few months. Video titles such as “1 Progressive vs 20 Far-Right Conservatives”, “1 Capitalist vs 20 Anti-Capitalists”, and “1 Conservative vs 25 Liberal College Students” sparked heated discussion across the internet. In the first video I mention, “1 Progressive vs 20 Far-Right Conservatives” featuring journalist Mehdi Hasan, the comments highlight exactly how controversial these videos are. Examples of the most popular comments include: “this might be the most insane jubilee video yet” by user @hh-ms3ub (66k likes), and “I’ve literally been micro dosing this video. I can only take 2 mins per day” by @emilyely9043 (8k likes). Clearly, debates like this one are only making things worse, and the comments reveal how disillusioned the public is. Looking at the response to these debates, one could reason that asking questions and proposing these arguments do not, in fact, bridge political gaps, but rather make them worse.
However, I would argue that debate videos like these do not actually have their audiences’ best interests at heart. They platform extremist views in thinly-veiled attempts to rage-bait their audience into engaging – no matter what that engagement looks like. Asking questions with intentionality and empathy towards others’ opinions will have much more progress than these bad faith “debates”.
There are productive ways to go about this that don’t involve promoting extremist views. One study finds that “correcting misperceptions of rival partisans’ views and endorsements” and “emphasizing common identities” – among other strategies – help enhance support for bipartisan unity and reduces tolerance for political violence. This is where asking deeper questions comes in. How will we understand others with differing political views if we’re unable or unwilling to ask?
So, if online rage-bait debates do not ask the right questions, what kind of questions should we be asking? Sitting down a bunch of people that disagree with one another in a room together and having them simply “battle it out” isn’t going to fix anything. Most people have a general understanding of what the opposing party’s political views are; this is not the issue. Instead, we should be focusing on questions that get to the core of why people believe what they believe. We should focus on empathizing, rather than arguing.
Getting to the core of a belief takes a lot of time. Often, people on both sides of the aisle start with similar motivations but end up with entirely different ideas on how to fix these issues. For example, people on both the right and the left worry about the job market – however, people on the left might blame the wealthy 1% and people on the right might blame immigration for causing economic issues. Questions like “what makes you feel that way?” and “what makes you believe that’s true?” will help people on both sides get to the bottom of why each side holds different values, so we can find common ground. Although these questions might cause arguments, if both sides are open and willing to truly understand one another’s perspective, we can avoid further polarization.
Holding empathy for others that you completely disagree with is difficult. However, it starts by beginning these conversations in good faith. While it’s important to avoid extremists – as these people can be racist or sexist or violent – engaging in empathy with reasonable people who disagree with you is possible. Self-reflection is key, and we must be willing to ask ourselves difficult questions as well – ‘am I guilty of the thing I’m criticizing?’, ‘what about this is pushing me to argue?’, and ‘what am I hoping to achieve through this argument?’ are examples of questions that will help keep our criticisms productive.
Ultimately, our goal should be finding common ground. We don’t have to include bigots or violent extremists in our goal of bridging these gaps, but most of the population consists of reasonable people that want the same end goals that we do, with just a different understanding of how to get there. Asking deeper questions that get to the root of issues will help people gain empathy for one another and narrow political divide.