Limit Massively Parallel Partisanship

5. Massively Parallel Goals

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

June 20, 2026

The Burgesses use the term “massively parallel partisanship” to describe a dangerous misuse of massively parallel social energy. The same kind of decentralized activity that can strengthen democracy can also deepen hyper-polarization. Many people, acting independently, but in the same general direction, can work to solve shared problems. They can also work to defeat, humiliate, or permanently disempower the other side. This is the Achilles heel of the strategy. Massively parallel processes can help societies learn and adapt. They can also drive destructive conflict spirals.

Partisanship is not the same thing as bad faith. In a democracy, people are supposed to advocate for their values, their communities, and their preferred policies. Parties and movements help organize that advocacy. The problem begins when advocacy turns into an all-out effort to defeat the other side as an enemy. At that point, people stop asking whether an action is fair, truthful, or good for the larger society. They ask whether it helps their side win. When millions of citizens, donors, activists, media figures, and political professionals act from that mindset, the result is not ordinary democratic competition. It is massively parallel escalation.

This dynamic is especially dangerous because it feels morally justified to those caught inside it. If the other side is seen as evil or illegitimate, then almost any tactic can seem necessary. Rules become obstacles. Compromise becomes betrayal. Elections become battles for survival, rather than recurring opportunities to persuade fellow citizens. Carnegie’s discussion of why polarization is a problem makes a similar point: democracy becomes much harder when people believe that the other side is morally corrupt and that their own side alone represents virtue. Under those conditions, power-with democracy gives way to power-over politics.

Limiting massively parallel partisanship does not mean asking people to become neutral about injustice or passive about threats to democracy. It means changing the target. Heidi Burgess’s essay on reversing polarization and escalation and its newsletter on The Great Reframing argues that the problem should be reframed. The primary enemy is not “the other side.” It is the destructive conflict dynamics that turn both sides into less constructive versions of themselves. That process is intensified by bad-faith actors who profit from fear, outrage, and division. Once citizens understand this, they can still advocate strongly. But they can do so in ways that protect democratic rules and leave room for future cooperation.

The success of Massively Parallel Peacebuilding depends on this great reframing. People need to unite around the shared task of resisting bad-faith actors and destructive conflict dynamics. That does not require agreement on every issue. It does require a shared commitment to fair procedures, truthful argument, nonviolent politics, and the continued respect for one’s opponents. If massively parallel efforts are directed toward defeating the other side, no matter what and whatever the cost, they will reinforce hyper-polarization. If they are directed toward making conflict more constructive, they can help build the power-with democracy that all sides need in order to protect their long-term interests.

—————————

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.