The Depolarization Manifesto

I

In the democratic version of Orwell’s Animal Farm, the pigs maintain control by turning all elections into a choice between two pigs wearing ties of different colors.

They trick the other animals into focusing their energy on the wrong goal: getting their preferred party elected instead of preventing pigs from being elected altogether.

The greatest threat to democracy is not dictators (they are merely a symptom), but voters losing sight of what truly matters.

II

Voters lose their focus when they believe that winning the next election is more important than electing a competent government.

This occurs when voters view a particular issue as a life-or-death situation and allow this perception to lower their standards for what they expect from representatives, including their own. In their urgency to ensure their party wins, they tolerate incompetent and corrupt candidates, overlook their mistakes, support their flawed policies, and abandon the fight for truth and competence.

If this occurred for just one election, the damage might be limited. However, when every election is framed as a matter of life or death, and voters progressively accept worse and worse behavior, the quality of government rapidly deteriorates.

III

The problem with government quality deteriorating is not only that citizens become poorer and receive worse public services, but also that it increases the likelihood of dissatisfied voters switching sides, even if the opposition runs terrible candidates.

Compromising on standards to help your party succeed might win the next election, but it ultimately leads to losing future ones, resulting in incompetent and polarized political opponents in power.

A disaster.

This is why it is never worthwhile to lower your standards for your party’s candidates, even when preventing the opposition from winning feels like a matter of life and death.

Rationale

I

Polarization is not just political differences or heated debate. It’s the belief that the opposing group poses such a danger that it justifies adopting unethical behavior against them: insulting, lying, cheating, suspending due process, collective punishment, and so on.

II

Polarization is fear-driven but not irrational. Its logic is that the other group is so dangerous that extreme measures are justified to limit their influence and negative impact.

However, adopting extreme measures makes one’s own group appear unreasonable and dangerous, thereby justifying extreme measures from the opposition.

Therefore, polarization is always mutual.

III

If polarization weren’t mutual, it would be an effective tool for advancing political goals. However, since polarized behavior from one group triggers similar responses from others, it gradually erodes societal trust and institutional effectiveness. As a result, governing becomes more difficult even if one wins the elections, and society suffers even if one gets to pass their favorite policies.

For example, if someone sees environmental neglect as a life-or-death risk, wanting to use any method to raise awareness is comprehensible. However, if these methods alienate most of the population, it becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to gain the broader societal support required to improve the environment at scale.

Therefore, it is paramount never to let virtuous ends justify polarized means.

IV

Under a short enough time horizon, using polarizing tactics always makes sense, and under a long enough time horizon, it never does.

For example, using censorship against a wannabe dictator is a good idea to prevent his rise to power. The question is whether normalizing censorship makes it easier for another wannabe dictator to rise to power.

So, of course, there are good arguments for why the use of polarizing tactics brings good short-term outcomes. The question is whether the long-term effect is positive, and the answer is inevitably negative.

Escalation

I

Polarization begins when someone expresses a belief that’s perceived as dangerous by the outgroup, and their ingroup fails to dissociate from them. For example, when someone makes a racist comment, and their community members do not call them out on it.

This silence makes the entire ingroup appear dangerous to the outgroup.

II

The perceived dangerousness of a group stems from two factors: (1) the group harbors unethical individuals, and (2) the group seems unwilling or unable to call them out or hold them accountable.

A third factor often exacerbates this: when the group conspicuously celebrates their unity, including unity with those unethical individuals.

III

There are several reasons the ingroup may be unwilling to police its members who do or say unethical things:

They justify it as “tit for tat.”

They view the person making such statements as “that weird guy” and cannot imagine others would take them seriously or consider them representative of the whole group's beliefs.

They are already so polarized that they believe they face a life-or-death situation where it is paramount to stick together and offer no vulnerability to their political opponents. Whether these three behaviors are justified is irrelevant. What matters is whether they invite similar behavior from the other group.

IV

And yet, the very people who believe (1), (2), and (3) above often fail to extend the same benefit of the doubt to the outgroup. When someone from the outgroup says something polarizing, they take it at face value. When “that weird guy” from the other group says something dangerous, they present it as if coming from a respected representative who speaks for the entire group.

V

These behaviors intensify polarization and make all groups more likely to engage in further polarizing actions and polarizing rhetoric. A race to the bottom where even the winners lose.

Temptations

I

Because polarization is always mutual, it cannot be resolved through polarizing actions.

For instance, censoring a political opponent only deepens polarization, as a portion of the population will view the censorship as unjustified and, consequently, perceive the censors themselves as the real threat.

II

It is paramount to resist the temptation to say, “The other side exaggerates and misrepresents, so we are justified in doing the same” – as the saying goes, an eye for an eye, and the world goes blind.

III

It is paramount to resist the temptation to call for censorship. Not only is focusing on what people say rarely the best approach to address hate speech (enforcing existing laws against criminal actions would put most hateful individuals behind bars anyway, with far less collateral damage to free speech), but censorship itself is polarizing and invites retaliatory censorship against you.

IV

It is paramount to resist the temptation to claim, “The other side is so dangerous, we must stop them at all costs.” Is the entire opposing side truly dangerous, or only certain members? And if only some are dangerous, is exaggeration really the most effective way to get their side to distance themselves from these individuals?

Accurately representing the dangers posed by specific individuals often makes a more compelling argument that can garner broader support than exaggeration ever could.

V

It is paramount to resist the temptation to say, “If we do not exaggerate and misrepresent, we will lose the elections.” If you resort to exaggeration and misrepresentation, you will get pigs elected, regardless of the color of their tie.

Not only will electing a pig make you miserable even if they share your party colors, but it will increase the chances of your party losing subsequent elections, as dissatisfied voters switch to the other side.

Depolarization

I

The first step to reduce polarization is to recognize that one's political opponents comprise two distinct groups, reasonable individuals and unreasonable ones, and to avoid conflating the two.

Then, limit unnecessary engagement with the unreasonable ones, especially on social media, as interacting with these individuals is precisely what might tempt you to say or do polarizing things.

And when you do engage with the unreasonable, always treat them as individuals and never do or say things implying you believe everyone in their community is unreasonable.

II

The second step to reduce polarization is to always address specific individuals when criticizing behavior from the opposing group, and never misrepresent or exaggerate their actions. Any generalization will inevitably be perceived as polarizing.

III

The third step to reduce polarization is to always address the reasonable members of the opposing group when proposing policies, explicitly listening to their concerns and addressing them without dismissing them. This approach not only decreases polarization but also helps craft better and more widely acceptable policies that are more likely to be implemented and sustained.

This stands in direct contrast to what most of us do when proposing policies: addressing our own group, who already supports them and needs no further convincing – and in the meantime, antagonizing the opposing group, whose support we need for the policy to be effectively implemented and resist the next election cycle.

IV

The fourth step to reduce polarization is to focus on the strongest argument for or against a policy rather than exploring the second-strongest, third-strongest, and weaker points.

The further down the list of arguments one goes, the less solid they become, and the more public discussion will fixate on the most divisive details.

V

The fifth step to reduce polarization is to consistently call out unreasonable behavior from one’s own side. Failing to do so not only encourages more such behavior, but can be interpreted by the opposing group as tacit approval – and nothing seems more threatening than an unreasonable individual gathering widespread support.

VI

The sixth step to reduce polarization is to consistently call out exaggerations and misrepresentations, both from people belonging to the other side and our own – in particular from our own, for not calling out our unreasonable allies is the easiest way to make our whole group look dangerous.

VII

The seventh and final step to reduce polarization is to consistently emphasize that polarization is always mutual. That terrible president? They rose to power because of mutual polarization. That lack of trust in institutions? It occurred because of mutual polarization.

Even when one side bears more responsibility than the other, we must all address polarization as a shared problem. Failing to do so is not only polarizing in itself, but will lead even the less culpable group to justify unethical behavior.

VIII

The more the term “mutual polarization” enters public discourse, the more we will all realize what is going on, and the more we will avoid using solutions that are themselves polarizing.

Hypocrisy

I

Reducing polarization to zero is clearly impossible. This doesn’t mean it cannot be significantly diminished.

II

Even the most dedicated adherents of this manifesto will occasionally say or do something polarizing. Critics will inevitably point this out: “You ask us not to polarize, but you did it yourself that time. You’re a hypocrite.”

But hypocrisy is overrated. If only the perfect were allowed to call out others, then no one could call out anyone, and the world would quickly descend into mediocrity, chaos, and impunity.

The only path toward mutual improvement is to allow the imperfect to call out others.

III

Polarization is a coordination problem. When we encounter something polarizing, we feel compelled to respond with polarizing actions. But if we all stopped engaging in polarizing behavior simultaneously, we wouldn’t feel this compulsion.

Committing to a goal even when others are out of sync is the only way to initiate coordination.