Left-leaning Polarizing Behavior

3. Factors That Make Conflict Intractable

This introductory article was written by ChatGPT at the direction of Heidi Burgess, who reviewed, edited, and approved the final content.
For more information

Left-leaning movements and parties often describe their work as defending democracy, equality, inclusion, civil rights, and protection from authoritarianism. These are important democratic goals. But even worthy goals can be pursued in ways that intensify polarization, weaken trust, and make democratic problem-solving harder. The problem is not left-leaning advocacy itself. The problem is behavior that treats partisan victory, moral certainty, or control over institutions as more important than maintaining the shared democratic system in which conflicts can be addressed fairly.

One common polarizing pattern is the tendency to define broad groups of opponents as morally illegitimate, rather than engaging specific claims, behaviors, or policies. Examples include President Biden’s description of the philosophy underlying the MAGA movement as “semi-fascism,” Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” comment, and Biden’s disputed “garbage” remark. More broadly, treating ordinary conservative voters as bigots, racists, authoritarians, oppressors, or enemies of democracy may energize the left. But it also confirms the fears of many conservatives that progressive elites hold them in contempt—or worse. That makes persuasion harder, strengthens defensive identity politics, and encourages the right to respond in kind.

A second problem involves speech and information control. Some left-leaning institutions and activists have supported efforts to deplatform speakers, pressure employers or universities to punish disfavored views, or encourage technology platforms to suppress misinformation in ways that many conservatives experience as censorship. There are real problems of hate speech, harassment, disinformation, and threats. But when efforts to protect vulnerable groups or defend truth are carried out through vague standards, moral denunciation, or informal pressure campaigns, they can undermine confidence in free expression and make people fear that political power will be used to silence them. The controversy over government communications with social-media companies examined in Murthy v. Missouri illustrates how difficult and politically explosive the boundary between legitimate public-health communication and improper pressure can become.

A third polarizing pattern is the use of institutional hardball in the name of defending democracy. Efforts by some Trump opponents to remove him from the ballot under the Fourteenth Amendment, proposals by some Democrats to expand the Supreme Court after conservative victories, and the tendency to describe courts, election rules, or constitutional structures as illegitimate when they produce unwanted outcomes, but not when they produce favorable outcomes, all risk worsening the arms race over institutions. Some of these proposals have serious legal or moral arguments behind them. But they can also teach the other side that democratic rules are merely tools to be used when convenient and attacked when inconvenient.

Finally, some left-leaning activism has contributed to fear and backlash by using slogans or tactics that are easily understood as threatening public safety, national cohesion, or ordinary people’s standing in society. “Defund the police,” disruptive protest tactics, ideological litmus tests in schools and workplaces, and some diversity, equity, and inclusion programs may be intended to address real injustices. But when they are pursued without broad consent, careful explanation, or attention to unintended effects, they can make many people feel accused, excluded, or unsafe. Constructive democracy work requires pursuing justice in ways that also build trust, protect dissent, and leave room for people who are not already convinced.

—————

This page was created by ChatGPT in response to this prompt. It was then reviewed, edited, supplemented and approved by Heidi Burgess. More information about how and why we are using AI in this way, and about the growing number of ways in which Beyond Intractability is using ChatGPT, Claude and other AI systems to generate content and build out the BI system, is available on our BI/AI Overview Page.