Democracy

 Greg Berman -  My experience at the Center for Court Innovation came rushing back to me when I read Robert Talisse’s short, provocative book of political philosophy, Sustaining Democracy: What We Owe to the Other Side.Talisse, a professor at Vanderbilt University, is primarily concerned with what he calls “the democrat’s dilemma.” Talisse thinks there is a real possibility of American democracy collapsing, but not because some of us are inherently bad people who are instinctively authoritarian. Rather, he believes that “democracy can break down even when every citizen is an active, sincere, and conscientious participant.”

According to Talisse, people are generally attracted to politics because they are pursuing a vision of justice. That sounds like a good thing, but it has some negative unintended consequences. The more passionate you are about pursuing justice, the more likely you are to view your political adversaries not just as opponents to be beaten at the ballot box but as threats to democracy that must be neutralized. Thus: “Engaged citizenship makes democracy work but also can erode the common ground that makes democracy possible.” That’s the democrat’s dilemma in a nutshell.

Talisse’s ultimate goal is to get us to see that respecting our political adversaries is in our own long-term best interests. Like Stanford professor Morris Fiorina, Talisse does not believe that Americans have become ideologically polarized; indeed, he thinks that the ideological divide in American politics has probably decreased in recent decades. Unfortunately, the way that people feel about their political opponents has intensified — Republicans are now reporting much higher levels of dislike for Democrats than they used to (and vice versa).

Talisse argues that the force behind this is belief polarization. According to Talisse:

Belief polarization is the phenomenon by which interactions among like-minded people tend to result in each person adopting more radical versions of their shared views. It is the force by which engagement with like-minded others transforms us into more extreme versions of ourselves…When we surround ourselves only with others who reinforce our ideas, we tend not only to become more confident in the correctness of those ideas, but also to adopt more radical or exaggerated formulations of them.

Talisse makes the case that, as groups experience belief polarization, they become more homogenous and more conformist. Instead of searching for potential allies, like-minded groups tend to hunt for heretics. Non-compliant members are marginalized and eventually expelled, leaving only the hard-liners behind. We often think of the quest for justice as a virtuous circle, with positive ripple effects extending out in unexpected directions as we seek to build a better world. But Talisse presents a horrific, funhouse mirror version of this dynamic, arguing that a dedication to justice can backfire horribly and lead to belief polarization:

Our exposure to belief polarization…encourages attitudes and dispositions that ultimately render us less efficacious political actors. Further, belief polarization erodes our democratic capacities. As it progresses, we become less capable of regarding those with whom we disagree as our equals. It additionally causes us to overinflate the significance of disagreements among our allies. When belief polarization is pronounced we are left unable to cooperate on civil terms with anyone who isn’t just like us. Our political endeavors lose their democratic cast; in seeking to prevail over our opponents, we attempt to impose what we regard as justice on our fellow citizens. Accordingly, a deeper irony looms: our zeal for justice can transform us into exactly what our worst enemies say we are.