By Kaldan Kopp
Introduction
The United States historically classifies its differences, diversity, and divisions as a strength. We romanticize these differences, from sea to country, from naturalized to natural born. However, in recent years, there has been a stark shift in our views of these divisions. No longer can the identity as an American alone unite us all. Not only do our philosophical differences divide us, but divisions along with class, religion, ethnicity, sexual identity, and gender identity, among others, divide us. In the current political climate, our divisions are no longer a pillar of strength, but a bastion of discontent. This is very clear to see – our divides push us against one another, with misunderstanding, miscommunication, and misinformation about opposing sides. If nothing is done, these divides will continue to grow and cause more harm to our democracy. Interventions to reduce some of those divisions must be made. A federal program fostering communication across differences would be a small step toward opening communication and will allow for some of these divisions to be reduced – and any reduction is better than no reduction at all. The goals of the program are twofold: 1) humanizing someone with a different opinion and 2) fostering a sense of unity from our differences.
Data and Framework
In 2018, NBC News reported that “Americans are divided over everything except division” with an overwhelming majority of 80% of Americans believing that the Country is divided, over united (Chinni et al.). The program’s overarching goal would be to reduce that divide, and it would do so by having participants humanize someone with a different opinion, and then foster a sense of unity from those divisions. The four divisions that would be targeted by the program are class, political association, religion, and race. Each of these divisions would be targeted because they see a unique animosity between sides and a very clear division that is widely acknowledged.
Class: Class divisions in the United States have been growing exponentially in recent years. According to a study from the Brookings Institution, the top 20% of families have seen around a $75,000 increase in average household income from 1967 to 2013, while in the same period, the middle 40% has seen a $16,000 increase, and the bottom 20% has seen a $3,000 increase (Reeves). The numbers are very clear – class divisions and differences are growing, even without regard to the exponential growth seen by corporations and billionaires in the same period. Similarly, 58% of people believe that the upper class is paying too little in taxes, while 20% believe that the lower class is paying too little, and 6% believe that the middle class is paying too little (Parker).. A majority of Americans believe that those in the upper class are paying too little in taxes, and this causes animosity from some of those who believe that. According to the Cato Institute, 52% of Americans under 30 believe that “‘most’ rich people in the United States got rich ‘by taking advantage of other people (Ekins).’”
Politics: Political divides today are at an all-time high for the US. According to a 2021 Gallup Poll, 46% of Americans identify or lean Democrat, and 43% identify or lean Republican (Jones). In the last twenty years, “the overall share of Americans who express consistently conservative or consistently liberal options has doubled,” and the trend isn’t slowing down (Pew Research Center). According to a 2021 study conducted by CBS News, 57% of Republicans see Democrats as enemies, and not political opposition, while 41% of Democrats see Republicans as enemies, and not political opposition (Salvanto). Pew Research Center, in a publication from January 2022, 86% of Republicans have an unfavorable opinion of Democrats, and 92% of Democrats have an unfavorable opinion of Republicans (Pew Research Center).
Religion: Americans are also divided along religious lines. 70.6% of Americans identify as Christian, 5.9% as a part of a Non-Christian Faith, and 22.8% as Religious “Nones” (i.e. Atheists, Agnostics, etc) (Pew Research Center).. According to a study regarding how evangelicals and atheists feel about one another, atheists and evangelicals have a low placement on a “feeling thermometer” scale toward one another. Participants were asked to rate them on a scale of how warmly they saw them, with 0 being not warm at all and 100 being very warm, or favorable. Atheists and Evangelicals rated one another very coolly, with Atheists putting Evangelicals at 28, and Evangelicals placing Atheists at 25 (Lipka).
Race: Racial divisions within the United States have been the subject of discussion for many years. According to the US Census Bureau, in the US, the three largest racial or ethnic groups are ‘White alone, not Hispanic or Latino’ with 57.8% of the population, ‘Hispanic or Latino’ with 18.7%, and ‘Black or African American alone, not Hispanic or Latino’ with 12.7% (Census Bureau). However, racial tensions within the US have increased in recent years, coming with the national reckoning over slavery and race. America is colloquially proud of being a melting pot, but racial relations have become tenser in recent years, especially since the national reckoning around race gained traction during 2020. According to the Pew Research Center in 2021, 53% of U.S. adults say that “increased attention to that history is a good thing for society, while 26% say it is a bad thing and another 21% say it is neither good nor bad (Pew Research Center).”
Analysis
Getting two people with differing opinions to meet would be beneficial to both parties involved. According to the American Psychological Association, the contact hypothesis states that “all that’s needed for greater understanding between groups is contact, period, in all but the most hostile and threatening conditions (DeAngela).” The contact hypothesis’ competency was tested in 2017 with the UK’s citizen Assembly on Brexit, which found a solution bringing the opposing sides on the Brexit debate together, coming up with a solution, and creating an understanding between the opposing sides of the argument (Citizen Assembly on Brexit). People within the assembly found that “‘the assembly gives an all-round balanced view’” of the differing opinions on Brexit, leading to understanding the opposing side more. However, a clear line must be drawn between misunderstanding and hatred. The contact hypothesis holds “in all but the most hostile and threatening conditions,” where hatred and intolerance are not at hand. Hatred and intolerance cannot and should not stand. Misunderstanding where an opposing side is coming from is vastly different from hate and must be treated as such. Misunderstanding can be corrected and fixed by communication, humility, and willingness to listen to an opposing viewpoint. Solving things like homophobia, racism, classism, and ableism are not as simple – they are rooted in hatred, and should not be considered in the following discussion.
Divisions by themselves are not a problem – after all, that is the American Ideal that we used to hold upon a pedestal. However, that American ideal is being overshadowed by the divisions themselves. Each of the four cases of division, class, race, religion, and political association have misunderstanding or undeducation on one or more sides toward the other. These divisions are producing animosity today, and have lasted time. Increased polarization hurts those involved, and it harms our image as America. Each side is villainized by the other, while they villainize the other side themselves. America’s international image is also hurt by our divisions. On the world stage, we are seen to be infighting, yet we are proud to be the leader of the free world. The three benefactors of adopting a communication program to reduce divides are those on opposing sides of our division, American democracy, and the U.S.’s image on the world stage. Bridging divides between those with different viewpoints will do two things for those involved. It will force someone to recognize why they hold their own opinions, and it will do the inverse, forcing them to reckon with why someone else may hold an opinion different than their own. American democracy will also be strengthened, because it will reignite our common goal and identity, being American. In recognizing that we may not individually share the same goals, but rather the idea that America’s strength comes from open and honest discourse, Americans will be more apt to work with rather than against one another. On the world stage, America will be more respected as it will finally be living up to the ideals that we promote on the world stage, democracy, accountability, and cooperation. It is hypocritical for the United States to hold up to these ideals but not live up to them within our country.
Solutions and Refutations
To heal some of the divides caused by nothing more than circumstance, the United States should adopt a communication program meant to pair individuals with differing opinions on a wide range of issues, not just those outlined above, together, to 1) humanize someone with those differences, 2) foster a sense of pride in our divisions. This federally fostered program, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, would be an online quiz and interface, automatically pairing two people with different opinions together. The U.S. Department of Education could take on this task, as it falls within the second purpose as declared by the agency when it was founded in 1979 – “to promote improvements in the quality and usefulness of education through federally supported research, evaluation, and sharing of information (U.S. Department of Education).” The adoption of this would improve the quality of education because it would allow someone who may not have access to people different from themselves easy access to new perspectives and new information, the goal of education. Furthermore, it would improve the usefulness of education, as it would be working towards a clear goal that would benefit the United States – reducing divides.
The creation, implementation, and maintenance of the program would be very simple, considering the logistics of such a program. The first step would be to write out the quiz and implement it online. During the implementation, the scores for pairing different participants would be automatically done – removing the human aspect after implementation and maintenance. People would be able to complete the questionnaire, and then be paired automatically. The quiz itself would have questions in four areas, one for each of the divisions. The questions would be very straightforward, and each question would fall into one of two categories, a self-identification question, and an opinion question. A self-identification question for race, for example, would be very similar to the census questions – “Are you of Hispanic or Latino origin?” and “What race are you?” The self-identification question for class could be “What is your household income,” the answer to which could very easily be tracked to an income scale. Questions to classify religious affiliation would be simple – the survey taker would simply identify what religion they practice if any. Political affiliation could be classified using the most recent election, and how a person voted. The opinion questions would be a little bit more convoluted, but they would nonetheless be relatively easy to track. Questions about views along the other side would have to be formulated, such as how favorable or unfavorable someone views the upper class. This, as an example, would allow the program organizers to group people into classes, and then view how they see the upper class. If they are in different classes and they view the upper class differently, they could be potentially paired together. Tracking the opinions of the stakeholders in each case would provide a metric for pairing beyond simple identity in a group. Once these metrics are compared, people would be paired with someone of different views than their own to have a discussion.
The monetary cost of such a program needs to be considered. The largest cost would come with the creation of the program, as the Department of Education would need to write questions and implement them using a program. However, this cost would be felt most at the onset of the program. People would need to write questions, set the metrics for pairing participants together, and then program it. However, programming a quiz and an automatic paring isn’t difficult, nor requires much time. Neither would the maintenance of the program itself, as the only issues that would arise directly from the program would be bugs within the software. After the implementation is complete, only maintenance would be needed.
A program of this form would meet the two goals outlined above: humanizing someone with different opinions and views and fostering a sense of community in our divisions. Program participants may not be receptive or have changed their opinions on an opposing group. However, even if the participants in the program have the same negative opinions about an opposing group that they had when entering the program, the goal will have been reached. The first step to changing an opinion is understanding the opposition, and the first step of understanding the opposition lies in listening to the other side. Furthermore, by communicating with someone that has a different option than their own, the participants will have put a face and a connection with the opposition – humanizing the other side. The very cornerstone of our democracy lies in the democratic process of fairness and discussion about issues. By holding conversations in a safe and moderated manner, open communication will occur – boosting discussion about issues. This will foster a sense of unity through our divisions in two ways. It could come to pass that participants find something in common with the other side – a common goal, ideal, or background, or it could be that participants realize that they are participating in American ideals healthily and helpfully.
The United States should adopt a federally fostered communication program to heal some of the divides that are within our country. Our country is becoming more and more divided every day. The four biggest and arguably most divisive divisions lie in class, race, political affiliation, and religion. The program proposed would begin to heal some of those divisions through open, honest communication between members of opposing parties, and would begin to a) humanize someone with a differing viewpoint, and b) rekindle a sense of pride in our divisions. Our country used to be one that held our divisions up like a pedestal. We were a land of many peoples, viewpoints, and opinions. Our democratic institutions work because of our differences- we must rekindle our pride and acceptance of those differences to move forward as a country. We should stand shoulder to shoulder with those that have different opinions than us, proud of our unifying identity as Americans.
Bibliography
Department of Education § (2009).
“Citizens Assembly On Brexit – Summary Report.” https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/sites/constitution-unit/files/citizens-assembly-interim-report.pdf.
Chinni, Dante and Sally Bronston. “Americans Are Divided over Everything except Division.” NBCNews.com. NBCUniversal.
DeAngelis, T. “All You Need Is Contact.” Monitor on Psychology.
“Deep Divisions in Americans’ Views of Nation’s Racial History – and How to Address It.” Pew Research Center, August 12, 2021. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/08/12/deep-divisions-in-americans-views-of-nations-racial-history-and-how-to-address-it/.
Ekins, Emily. “Poll: Young Americans Are More Likely to Resent the Rich.” Cato.org.
“Favorable Views of Republican, Democratic Parties Decline; Majorities View Both Parties Negatively.” Pew Research Center – U.S. Politics & Policy. Pew Research Center, February 7, 2022. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/01/25/views-of-the-republican-and- democratic-parties /.
Jones, Jeffrey M. “U.S. Political Party Preferences Shifted Greatly during 2021.” Gallup.com. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/388781/political-party-preferences-shifted-greatly- during-2021.aspx.
Lipka, Michael. “U.S. Christians Are Chilly toward Atheists, and the Feeling Is Mutual.” Pew Research Center .https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/16/u-s-evangelical- christians-are- chilly- toward-atheists-and-the-feeling-is-mutual/#:~:text=On%20average% 2C%20 Catholics % 20give%20atheists,average%20thermometer%20reading%20of%2025.
Parker, Kim. “Yes, the Rich Are Different.” Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2012/08/2 /yes-the-rich- are-different/.
“Political Polarization in the American Public.” Pew Research Center, April 9, 2021. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/.
Reeves, Richard V.. “The Dangerous Separation of the American Upper Middle Class.” Brookings.
“Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics, and Statistics.” Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project, September 9, 2020. https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/.
Salvanto, Anthony, Jennifer de Pinto, Fred Backus, and Kabir Khanna. “Majority Favor Conviction as Impeachment Trial Begins, but Many Republicans Urge Loyalty to Trump – CBS News Poll.” CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/impeachment-trial-trump-conviction-opinion-poll/.
U.S. Census Bureau. Race and Hispanic Origin, 2020.