„Political polarization in America is at a record high and the conflict has propelled itself beyond differences of opinion on political issues. … Hatred and anger, as well as the absence of positive intergroup feelings and moral guilt or shame, can be a significant obstacle to both the type of interest-based agreements that would benefit all parties involved and the types of relationship development programs that can humanize opponents and create the confidence to reach broader agreements. Indeed, trying to obtain such an agreement by carefully producing effective concessions without worrying about relational barriers can be an exercise in vain. – Kahn et al. (2016) why we got to this point of extreme partisanship. Mason makes some suggestions on what we could do to minimize this gap as we know it. Although, as has already been said, this book focuses primarily on the causes and not on the solutions to the political divide we see today. Mason highlights the causes of non-civil policy, which could pave the way for a solution of political incivility. This book shows that we are still looking for a solution to incivility, but it offers wonderful clarity and explanation as to why we see a rise in disagreement and disagreement in politics A degree of antipathy – at least if not personal – may reflect disagreements of principle, not prejudice. But there is a big difference between a certain degree of antipathy and the forms of partyism we are now observing” (10th – Cass Sunstein (2015) I will again nominate Arthur Brooks as a potential future guest on this subject (or related), based on his new podcast focused on the art of disagreement. As a Liberal, Brooks is one of those conservatives that I have in mind because I am interested in some of his work. Lilliana Mason: The traditional thing when I started my thesis is that polarization is based on editing.

Americans are increasingly extreme in their thematic positions and are moving to both ends of the spectrum. Republicans are becoming extremely conservative and Democrats are extremely liberal. That would be polarization. The reason I started this whole project was to say, „What if there is another type of polarization? What if we weren`t polarized in our spending items? What happens if we have relatively moderate thematic positions, but we are so connected to our identities that, whatever the content of the problem, we feel very far from our „outgroups”? So problem-based polarization means we don`t agree, and identity-based polarization means that we feel that we are very different people from the other team, regardless of our actual emissions agreements. This is where the key to this enigma lies, unless it is not caused by the „left”. When people feel threatened, they regroup. This behavior has survival benefits. Nothing says the result of a violent dispute better than numerical superiority and coordination.