The Most Engaged Are The Most Partisan. Now What? – BCB #92
The Most Engaged Are The Most Partisan. Now What? – BCB #92
Political engagement alone doesn’t keep democracy functioning
Conventional wisdom holds that political engagement strengthens democracy. Those with an education and the time to participate in all stages of the electoral process are supposed to be the ones with the most enlightened, tolerant views, whereas trolling, misinformation, and aggression on both sides are blamed on people who are poorly educated, socially isolated, emotionally unstable or living in poverty—those “left behind” with no other outlet to express frustration, or those without the capacity to understand complex issues.
However, a new study examines two years of Twitter data and finds that precisely the opposite is true. In the United States, the people who are most actively hostile in online political discussions are, in fact, the most resourceful: they are well-educated, psychologically stable, and likely to have a large social and professional network. This means, the authors warn, that those with the most partisan and outspoken views are also more powerful and influential.
As one of the paper’s authors put it, “Twitter is not hostile because the platform democratizes access to politics. Rather, it is because engaged, efficacious & educated individuals, polarized by current politics, use Twitter to spew hate from their privileged network positions, for everyone to see.”
This may be surprising, but it’s not a new result. The most comprehensive review so far found that increased “digital media” use correlates with political knowledge, participation, expression and polarization:
This adds to previous previous evidence suggesting that citizens with the most partisan views are the most likely to vote, donate, and contribute to political groups, whereas those with more moderate positions are more likely to check out of the conversation altogether.
Why is this happening? It could be simply because outrage successfully attracts attention. In a classic 2014 essay Scott Alexander explored how political actors are incentivized to court controversy, raising public awareness via a “toxoplasma of rage,” a communicable disease that spreads via outrage. This is a colorful metaphor, but there’s solid evidence behind it. Scholars studying polarization have noted that drumming up division is a proven, successful political strategy, and that activists are incentivized to become conflict entrepreneurs..
Voters are motivated by fear of the other side
The over-representation of more partisan voices may explain why, in recent elections, Americans have tended to vote primarily against their perceived enemies rather than actively for the politics they support. This is known as negative partisanship: when out-group hate is stronger than in-party love. Political engagement is increasingly driven not by optimistic assessment of national priorities, but by fear and hatred of the other side.
There’s ample evidence that citizens are more likely to engage online not just with negative content, but with content about the other side. One group of researchers suggest that today’s “unique threat to democracy” is a “poisonous cocktail of othering, aversion and moralization—which we called ‘Political Sectarianism.’” They explain the basic ingredients of this toxic brew like this:
Othering, or the idea that partisan opponents (“the other side”) are fundamentally different from you, and that they behave in bewildering ways that are impossible to understand.
Aversion, or a strong personal dislike of people on the “other side.”
Moralization, or the belief that partisan opponents are lacking in morals or integrity, and may even be literally evil.
All of which may seem reasonable when the most engaged voices on “the other side” are also the most aggressive and outrageous.
Rethinking democratic participation
If the most partisan voices are also the most informed, articulate, and influential, that has an impact on our elected representatives. A politician whose priority is to stay in office may tailor their messaging to the perceived priorities of their base
Contrary to generations of democratic theory and uncounted millions of dollars spent by governments and philanthropists to increase civic engagement, political engagement alone is not necessarily healthy for democracy. More engaged citizens are only beneficial if certain other factors are in place: they must also be committed to interacting in good faith with the democratic process, including having a constructive relationship with people with whom they fundamentally disagree. The authors of the recent Twitter study call this “democratic enlightenment,” the "understanding of and commitment to the rules of the democratic game," which "tempers the unbridled pursuit of self-interested political engagement."
This is a challenge to the way we think about democracy. It’s not just that we want more people to be involved. Strategies that increase political knowledge, expression, and participation may actually be detrimental to the democratic process if they do not consider what kind of participation they create.
Quote of the Week
Picture this: you're a conservative Republican who is a "double hater" (19% of Americans who oppose both Biden and Trump).
You can't see yourself voting for either guy, but you understand how catastrophic a Biden second term would be on the things that matter most.
You're genuinely torn: you want to vote to stop Biden but, in doing, so you're endorsing Trump's behavior, non-conservative policy positions, etc. You don't know what to do.
Then, you see just the utter depravity of a not-insignificant segment of OnlyTrump fandom - the personal insults, the cruelty, the idol worship, the thinly-veiled (if at all) racism.
Do you avoid voting for Trump so as not to condone these folks and their leader, in hopes of preventing this from happening again? Or do you roll the dice and hope that simply stopping Biden is worth the total lack of credible staff/competency, boneheaded policy, constant drama, etc.?
It really is a position a LOT of post-Tea Party conservatives find themselves in.