Greg Munford

Brett Kavanaugh and Polarization

We, as Americans, cherish the freedom and right to disagree—which we do, often deeply about important issues that need resolution. But polarization undermines that freedom by tightening prejudices rather than opening thought, thus diminishing the chances for finding resolutions and moving forward. So while polarization may feel like a righteous champion of freedom and right, it is in fact just the opposite—a stick jammed in the spokes of the democratic discourse of freedom. Here are some of the common ways it does it:

SEDUCES with loaded, heated language and childish name-calling that appeals more to emotion that reason.
BLINKERS by using cherry-picked facts, and ignoring or mocking opposing arguments and evidence rather than actually addressing them.
TRIVIALIZES by focusing on “straw-man” issues whose value in re-enforcing biases is clearly greater than their substance.
BULLIES by making you feel like a dupe or a traitor if you even listen to the other side.
FLATTERS with language and a tone that makes you feel like an insider, who, of course, agrees with them because you “get it” … just like they do.
FRIGHTENS by portraying the other side as not just wrong, but a dangerous, evil enemy, replete with wicked hidden agendas.
“CLANS,” that is, plays the “us vs. them” identity politics game of associating the other view with groups or people (implicitly) “inferior” to “us.”
“TRIBES” by using the knowing winks and nods of sarcasm, coded language, words in quotes (suggesting they’re misleading) and innuendo which you, as a member of the tribe, of course, will understand without explanation or justification.

This week . . . was all about Brett Kavanaugh. Again. Whatever you feel about the outcome, one lessons stands out: Polarization works. Reportedly advised by the Trump team to show his anger, Judge Kavanaugh came out swinging. Of course it’s hard to know the impact, but the fact is, he is now JusticeKavanaugh. Which does seem to confirm that the tactic of polarization is effective. Which is no surprise. It worked for the Nazis. It worked for the Bolsheviks. It worked for lynch mobs and vigilantes and the Ku Klux Klan.

Some bemoan polarization because it creates gridlock. That’s true as long as the polarizing forces are evenly balanced. But when one side gets the upper hand, it’s chillingly efficient, slashing through the messy, slow Gordian Knot of hearing and assessing arguments, weighing evidence, gathering (actual) facts and (actually) deliberating. And we know from pop culture how satisfying slashing through that pesky Knot can be. Just go back and watch Charles Bronson’s Death Wish vigilante-paean movie (or any of it’s four sequels.) Or what appears to be its most recent remake, Peppermint, in theatres now! (Full disclosure: I’ve only seen the trailer.)

But while it’s easy to celebrate the power of polarization when your side wins, it’s worth remembering the cost, which is freedom. Because freedom is nothing more than a process, a “rule book” for allowing for and resolving disagreement. That is all our check-and-balance, due-process, Gordian-Knot Constitution (and, really, America) is.

It will be interesting to see Justice Kavanaugh’s interpretation of this in the years ahead. But for now, as the virulent anti- and pro- Kavanaugh forces pump their fists or lick their wounds and point fingers and glower at each other across their snarling op-eds, it might be worth taking some time to consider what they are doing to us, our nation and our ideals – and whether it’s time to just stop listening to them. Especially when we agree.

When reading these examples, check the above list and ask yourself: regardless of whether you agree or disagree, is this really advancing an intelligent resolution through the persuasive, rational arguments of advocacy…or simply fueling the fire of conflict through the divisive, emotional manipulations of polarization?

Here are just a few of the blue and red polarizing headlines from the past week.