Americans agree more than they might think
By Lawrence Torcello
Ohio Capital Journal
The United States presents a paradox: Though the media and public opinion suggest it is a nation deeply divided along partisan lines, surveys reveal that Americans share significant common ground on many core values and political issues.
As a political philosopher, I am deeply concerned about the perceived contrast between the public’s shared political concerns and the high level of polarization that is dividing the electorate.
Sharing common ground on key issues
Despite the prevailing narrative of polarization, Americans frequently agree on essential issues.
For instance, there is widespread support for high-quality health care that is accessible to all and for stronger gun-control regulations. Remarkably, many Americans advocate for both the right to bear arms and additional restrictions on firearms.
There is strong support for fundamental democratic principles, including equal protection under the law, voting rights, religious freedoms, freedom of assembly and speech, and a free press.
On critical issues such as climate change, a majority of citizens acknowledge the reality of human-caused climate change and endorse the development of renewable energy. Similarly, support for women’s reproductive rights, including the right to an abortion, is widespread.
Though Republicans tend to be more concerned about the economy when they vote, both Republicans and Democrats rank it highly as a top political priority. Despite a currently strong economy by many standards, however, supporters of both parties believe the economy is performing poorly.
This fact is likely the result of a combination of pandemic-related factors, from reduced spending and increased saving during the height of the pandemic to lingering inflation, partly triggered by the pandemic. Whatever the reason for this shared pessimism over the economy, it clearly helped Donald Trump win the 2024 election.
Overall, Americans have a positive view of immigration. That sentiment has declined in recent years, however, as most Americans now want to see rates of immigration reduced – Republicans more so than Democrats.
Part of the tension in the nation’s thinking about immigration is likely the result of a political culture that favors sensational stories and disinformation over more sober consideration of related issues and challenges. For instance, much of this election’s discourse over immigration was marred by fictional and bigoted accounts of immigrants eating pets and inaccurate portrayals of most immigrants as criminals. It should be evident that even shared political perceptions aren’t always based on good evidence or reasons.
Despite the existence of so much common ground, Americans see the nation as polarized. Shared values and concerns matter little if constant exposure to disinformation makes it nearly impossible for half the population to sort fact from fiction.
The effect of perception
The perception of division itself can fuel distrust where common ground might otherwise be found among citizens.
Even with substantial consensus on many issues, the perception of polarization often drives public discourse. This misalignment can be exacerbated by partisans with something to gain.
Research shows that when people are told that experts are divided on an issue, such as climate change, it can lead to increased polarization. Conversely, emphasizing the fact of scientific consensus tends to unify public concern and action.
The perception among U.S. voters that they disagree more than they agree can precede and perpetuate discord. Differing political camps begin to perceive each other as foes rather than fellow citizens.
This continued perception that Americans are more divided on issues than we actually are poses an enormous threat to democracy. The biggest threat is that people begin to see even neighbors and family members who vote differently as enemies. Stress about holiday interactions with relatives who voted differently is reportedly leading some people to cancel family gatherings rather than spend time together.
Yet, Americans are still potential allies in a larger fight to realize similar political aspirations. If people are too busy attacking each other, they will miss opportunities to unite in defense of shared goals when threats emerge. In fact, they will fail to recognize the real threats to their shared values while busily stoking divisions that make them increasingly vulnerable to disinformation.
Recognizing the public’s shared values is an important step in healing political divides. Philosopher Robert B. Talisse has argued that one way to get started might be refocusing attention on community projects that are nonpolitical but bring together people who don’t normally think of each other as political allies.
This might include, for example, participating in civic or sports clubs, or volunteering to help with local community events. These actions are not overtly politically charged. Rather, they are collaborative in a way that supports community identity rather than partisan identity. It is an exercise in rebuilding civic trust and recognizing each other as fellow citizens, and perhaps even friends, without the tension of partisan politics. Once this trust in each other’s civic identity is healed, it can open a door for meaningful political discussion and understanding of each other’s shared concerns.
If we Americans don’t find ways to recognize our shared values, and even our shared humanity, we won’t be able to defend those values when they are challenged.
Lawrence Torcello, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Rochester Institute of Technology
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.
Comment
A totally biased and left-wing article.
First, the author announces, "As a political philosopher..." Ooo, wow. He's an associate professor of Philosophy, I'm sure he has a lot of real-world experience and practical knowledge into the day-to-day lives of American men and women. And he's "deeply concerned about the perceived contrast..." blah blah blah "...that is dividing the electorate." How much money did it take to learn to talk like that?
Many Americans do not want stronger gun control laws. We want the earlier laws enforced on the real bad guys. Why can I possess 15, 20, or, 30 round magazines and semi-automatic rifles in 40 States but if I have the same arms in the other 10 liberal States, then I'm a felon? The same goes for me carrying a concealed weapon coast-to-coast. I'm the same free and law-abiding citizen in every State, ain't I?
Why do the majority of States have voter ID laws, but the remaining liberal States do not?
Human-caused climate change is not a reality.
Abortion is not seen as a "right." It should not be used as a birth control method. It's a last resort, when all other life or death options have been exhausted.
Too much government spending caused the high inflation during the Biden administration.
Illegal immigration is not positive. It's illegal and unethical. Illegal immigration is a crime.
It will be interesting to see how progressives are affected when tariffs and the new department of governmental efficiency work on rebuilding our economy, putting limitations on government wastes, fraud, and abuses and reduces the federal debt.
Common Sense
“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”
Thomas Paine
Holding humanity in contempt?
The liberal left and progressives hold the majority of American gun owners in contempt. When they want to restrict or take away our Civil Rights. That's just for starters.
Conservatives have been called bitter gun owners and bitter Christians, a basket of deplorables, and garbage by Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden. That sounds like contempt to me.
The author of the article speaks, and uses rhetoric, from a leftist point of view from the very beginning. I can spot it a mile away. The article is neither well-reasoned nor common sense.
If one is to believe that this article is fair and impartial, and he's trying to find common ground, then one needs to read deeper into the language that is used. It's hard to find a journalist, teacher, or common citizen that is open-minded and neutral when discussing current American politics. That is just the way of life. People are born with bias. Jesus condemns sinners but He also loves sinners. And the rest of us fall short.
In my lifetime, I have softened my stances on Bill Clinton. And I have grown to vehemently disagree with Bush/Cheney, especially in their second term. This doesn't mean I'm a Democrat like you. I don't know what that means, except that the federal government spends way too much, and they infringe on too many of my Rights. (Actually, the government should not infringe on any Rights, but I understand things like Terry vs. Ohio and Mapp vs. Ohio.)
The bottom line is that this article's author, an associate professor of Philosophy at some school I've never heard of before, does not hold the key to political utopia in his keyboard. He's a left-wing hack. But he spoke to you, and he touched you. So much so, that you were compelled to comment in agreement.
I saw the article for what it is: a progressive column trying pass it off as a weak peace offering to Trump voters.
•••Publisher's note: Point, Game, Set and Match to Matt.
Authority?
In the film "A Few Good Men", Kiefer Sutherland's character Lt. Kendrick testified, "The only proper authorities that I'm aware of are Colonel Nathan Jessup and the Lord our God!"
Fictional Gitmo circa 1992 was not actual Fallujah 2004, but the point was made. And Thomas Paine was a footnote in a history book that most teachers never exposed.
A well reasoned and thoughtful article.
It will be interesting to see the effects on the economy of 25% tariffs (taxes) on Mexican and Canadian imports, 10% on Chinese imports and the deportation of millions of tax paying workers.