You wrote that conservatives "hold strident, uncompromising views." Don't Progressives also hold "strident uncompromising views"? Have you ever tried to defend Israel at a "pro Palestine" rally? Have you ever tried to disagree with someone who says "some women have penises"? I was kicked out of the Texas Handmaids for insisting that abortion was a women's rights issue, not "queer" rights issue. You haven't seen "strident" until you've tried to disagree with a "progressive".
Someone else already mentioned this, but I should make clear that that statement is about the most right-wing conservatives, not all conservatives (and yes, it's an analog to their left-wing counterparts). Also, the language I used for both them and "progressive activists" comes directly from More In Common's descriptions of the different types of groups.
If you read it in context, the author is making "strident, uncompromising views" the analog to progressives having "strong ideological views". It's fairly clear he's trying to paint both as two negative sides of the same negative coin.
Ironically, I think your comment serves as an apt illustration of the problem the article is getting at. (and that's not even to say you're wrong--if you attempt to contradict a hardline progressive or a hardline evangelical's deeply-held orthodoxy on some issue, you get the same manner of response, be it a meltdown at a politically-motivated rally or ostracism from a community that upholds the same orthodoxy)
You are right here about the extremists on both sides, but to me the critical difference is that the hard Left controls or influences a large number of societal institutions, and the hard Right controls nothing at all except perhaps a few local institutions with no power outside their immediate area. So making the extreme Left and Right equivalent is creating an equivalence of influence that does not exist.
You're not thinking clearly about the coalitional nature of institutional control in the U.S..
In actuality, we can point to very few if any large societal institutions controlled solely by the 'hard left', if by the 'hard left' you mean progressives and progressives alone. On the other hand, there are indeed several powerful institutions that you could say are largely under the control of a *coalition* composed of progressives *and* members of the center-left.
So it is with the hard right. (that is, the neo-fascists of either the 'Proud Boy' or 'Christian Nationalist' variety) Yes, by itself, the hard right doesn't control the courts, Congress, the Presidency and the military. But a coalition made up of the hard right partnered with the center-right *does* control all of those things.
But, if we want to be truly accurate with our political taxonomies, we should remember that progressives are *not* the leftmost flank of American political ideology, and that the *actual* 'hard left'--the Anarchist and Communist left--control next to nothing in the U.S. (It is also notable and amusing that left-anarchists and communists despise the center-left far more than they despise the right)
The hard right does control a few fairly important societal institutions with national influence, such as the Presidency, the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court.
I don't think you understand the hard right at all if you think that Trump, Congress, or the Supreme Court are that. They are conservative to center right, by the standards of people who actually inhabit the right side of the center line. And most of those who are center-right to mainstream conservative don't even know what the "hard right" in their cyberspace venues are even talking about. I certainly don't, and I don't care, nor does anyone that I know. The hard right is just as crazy as the hard Left, and have very little influence, as I said.
Funny thing is when you end up living in some obscure foreign town of a hundred thousand or so, and there are 5 other resident Americans, you will know and socialize with them all. I mean in a place like Indonesia, Madagascar or China, someplace where languages are obscure. We have a lot more in common than people realize.
I do find my fellow Dems to be more standoffish than the Rs, and I think anyone is missing out by not living amongst Republicans. Republicans, especially rural types, seldom ask political opinions. I've lived in Wyoming and Utah a lot, great people especially when something needs doing, they aren't shy of pitching in. Not too judgemental also.
Voting is a matter of checking a couple of boxes once every few years. Neighbors are everyday. Very different things.
I would argue that hermetically sealed ideological bubbles pretty much are a left-wing phenomenon, simply because it is impossible to for a right-winger to escape leftist messaging. The left controls almost all of the media, Madison Avenue, and Hollywood, which means their ideology is blasted 24/7. People on the right will constantly hear the left's message whether they want to or not.
A left winger simply needs to avoid Fox and will never hear right wing opinions.
I don’t think that it is possible to get the extremists to moderate their opinions, but it should be possible to elect more centrists to public offices. By “showing the flag” for moderation and compromise, organizations like the Liberal Patriot keep that hope alive, but it is not apparent that they have the same popular following as the extreme wings of the two main political parties.
It would be interesting to see how these perceptions change by religious affiliation. My guess is that you would see some significant differences if you look at this. Separately it takes a real effort not to fall into stereotyping others. It is truly aggravating that the most educated in our society are either blind to the need or too caught up with other things to put in the effort. Thanks for the article.
"In other words, while Republicans’ misperceptions of Democrats do not improve with higher levels of education, Democrats’ understanding of Republicans actually gets worse with every additional degree they earn" This used to be called "Snobbery."
It's the media. For the corporate media, it might be a business model (more clicks) or a reflection of the concentration of more extremists there. True of the dominant leftist side but also the smaller conservative media. This leads to different realities. As for the less visible world of personal media ,that is self-segregating, often around completely apolitical topics. Politics does sometimes intrude. I have heard unverifiable tales of people being kicked out of knitting forums for political opinions.
"Democrats’ understanding of Republicans actually gets worse with every additional degree they earn." Could this also have something to do with the subject matter of the degrees that many Democrats are probably earning? You won't find many Republicans in "studies" majors, I think. Gender studies, race studies, social studies, much of psychology, is totally contaminated at the university level now with queer theory, DEI, racialism, identity politics, grievance culture, and other nonsense to the exclusion of any real content that might exist in the subject. These "studies" majors teach students that Republicans are bad, horrible people who are all Hitlers and evil, violent monsters, creating caricatures of Republicans that not only are entirely false, but are so silly that anyone who engaged even one brain cell would realize that no actual person exists that matches this stereotype.
Your claim that “these "studies" majors teach students that Republicans are bad, horrible people who are all Hitlers and evil, violent monsters, creating caricatures of Republicans that not only are entirely false, but are so silly that anyone who engaged even one brain cell would realize that no actual person exists that matches this stereotype” is itself a caricature that is so silly that anyone who engaged even one brain cell would realize that no actual person exists that matches this stereotype. I live in Berkeley, and none of my very lefty friends believe anything remotely like that. Some of them actually teach these courses, and I’ve seen their syllabi, and talked to them, and none of them teach anything like that.
I think the reason you believe otherwise is that you know lefty people mostly through online discussion boards, and see conservative people face-to-face. Because I live in Berkeley, I see liberal people mostly faced-to-face and conservatives mostly online, so my experience is almost the opposite of yours. My experience of online people, left and right, is that they demonize everyone they talk to. There is something about the medium that does that to people. I have to watch myself constantly to make sure I don’t do it myself. I don’t always succeed. I may not have succeeded here.
I happen to inhabit conservative country, and am part of that culture. I have never met anyone who even remotely resembles the monster that the Dems say that all Republicans are. And yes, if they engaged their brains in any way they would realize that their stereotype of violent, enraged, dumb hulking guys spending all their time looking for inoffensive liberals to beat up is really stupid and doesn't represent any kind of reality. I'll hang out with a working class guy any day before I'd spend a minute with an angry left winger. I've been around working guys all my life and though there are some rough ones, as in any group, most of them are great. And I'm one of those "educated women" who are supposed to be liberal.
A very eye-opening analysis as regards the misperceptions held about those with sharply differing views than our own.
However, wouldn't it logically follow then that our political parties are at greatest risk of embracing extremist if minority elements when they share about equal popular support?
Winning is everything in politics, and Democrats did two very dangerous things in 2024 in their unsuccessful quest to win at any price.
First, they looked the other way and, by their silence, were complicit in allowing and lying about the millions of undocumented foreigners permitted to cross our nation's borders illegally, apparently in the current or future hope of padding their party's voting roles.
Secondly, after defeating Sen. Bernie Sanders, the self-professed Democrat-Socialist in the primaries, the party embraced his idealogy in a bid to win over his followers.
It did not succeed and arguably even backfired after the party's progressive Left tilt.
But it does reinforce the point that even smaller numbers can have oversized impact on a party's, and by extension the nation's, direction. Diligence is in order, as is principle.
There are beliefs, and then there is actuality. Immigration was often an afterthought for most Americans, until Biden and Dems, purposefully imported 10 million unvetted migrants, without a single extra housing unit, healthcare worker or bilingual teacher. Had Greg Abbott not spread the pain, by bussing a tiny fraction of migrants to Blue Cities, Biden and Harris might well have invited 20 million new arrivals. Dem actions made immigration important to Rep voters, not racism.
Likewise, for relocation decisions. Today an attorney for Montgomery, Maryland schools stood in front of SCOTUS and insisted preschoolers and other elementary students, must be present for literature lessons on transgenderism and sexual relationships. Parents were not requesting the lessons end, only that their children be allowed to opt out, with authorized absences. The schools insisted children must be informed, between the ages of 3-5, their parents may have misgendered them at birth, and that sexual relationships come in a multitude of forms.
If someone, personally, chooses to teach their 5 year old, he can choose his gender, and the differing mechanics of straight and gay sex, that is fine with most Reps. However, if someone does not want the subjects introduced, in public school, to their Montgomery, Maryland Kindergartner, it is nearly impossible for them to remain a resident, unless one can afford private school. The latter does not render a parent intolerant, but rather out of options. Reps will relocate, not because they do not wish to dwell amongst Dems, but because of policy, that cannot be escaped.
First I would ask for a breakdown of the numbers by regions.
"Even independents can’t always correctly judge where others stand on the issues of the day, a sign that less partisan people also sometimes struggle to assess things accurately."
The issue is where can one get the information to form such opinions of others. I have two adult children and I find their views diverse by their diversity of friends they have, but ignorant of the larger picture. One democrat couple, he and we have been friends since elementary school, highly intelligent wife I had to block and then I just got off Facebook. Her insult were so wide and generalized and I told my friend she might want to realize who she is insulting before posting her poison. 60 years of friendship and he said if you block her block me too. I am the executor of his estate. I said I had no reason to block him. In fact I quit listening to her a long time ago. She decided that she had the right to horn in on a conversati0on he and I were having to hurl more personal insults. I understand it all, but my wife who has tons of common sense, is more in tune with the world than these two are. And the ironic part is those complaining about their 401K. They are all still well ahead of where they started. The stock market always come back. Seems the more intelligent one is, the less of the future they can see.
I don't dispute that Republicans move to Republican subdivisions and Democrats to Democratic subdivisions, but how do they know? Unless the house search takes place during election season when yard signs provide a clue, it's been my experience that Democratic houses look pretty much like Republican houses from the outside, and doorknocking around the neighborhood to determine its political slant would make you suspect before you even moved in.
Personally, I look for flags. A row of American flags being flown says Trump supporters. I also look for cars and bumper stickers. Like, "I bought this before Elon went crazy." That's a liberal neighborhood.
Canada has managed polarization better than the United States. Perhaps social media is not as important in identity formation in Canada. Canadian unity has also benefited from the election of Trump.
I'd love for some group like this to begin. With the knowledge that not everyone will agree on every issue and that is okay. We are not robots yet. Still humans.
If you're interested in something like that, I'd check out a group called Braver Angels. They provide a space for Ds and Rs to talk with each other, judgment-free, about real issues that they disagree on. Their methodology has actually been proven to help reduce partisan animosity. https://braverangels.org/
I am. And thank you. It will help me to remember how to do this. I've sadly forgotten. I will not shame you for giving me this information. I know how to behave. I'm just out of practice.
You wrote that conservatives "hold strident, uncompromising views." Don't Progressives also hold "strident uncompromising views"? Have you ever tried to defend Israel at a "pro Palestine" rally? Have you ever tried to disagree with someone who says "some women have penises"? I was kicked out of the Texas Handmaids for insisting that abortion was a women's rights issue, not "queer" rights issue. You haven't seen "strident" until you've tried to disagree with a "progressive".
Someone else already mentioned this, but I should make clear that that statement is about the most right-wing conservatives, not all conservatives (and yes, it's an analog to their left-wing counterparts). Also, the language I used for both them and "progressive activists" comes directly from More In Common's descriptions of the different types of groups.
If you read it in context, the author is making "strident, uncompromising views" the analog to progressives having "strong ideological views". It's fairly clear he's trying to paint both as two negative sides of the same negative coin.
Ironically, I think your comment serves as an apt illustration of the problem the article is getting at. (and that's not even to say you're wrong--if you attempt to contradict a hardline progressive or a hardline evangelical's deeply-held orthodoxy on some issue, you get the same manner of response, be it a meltdown at a politically-motivated rally or ostracism from a community that upholds the same orthodoxy)
You are right here about the extremists on both sides, but to me the critical difference is that the hard Left controls or influences a large number of societal institutions, and the hard Right controls nothing at all except perhaps a few local institutions with no power outside their immediate area. So making the extreme Left and Right equivalent is creating an equivalence of influence that does not exist.
You're not thinking clearly about the coalitional nature of institutional control in the U.S..
In actuality, we can point to very few if any large societal institutions controlled solely by the 'hard left', if by the 'hard left' you mean progressives and progressives alone. On the other hand, there are indeed several powerful institutions that you could say are largely under the control of a *coalition* composed of progressives *and* members of the center-left.
So it is with the hard right. (that is, the neo-fascists of either the 'Proud Boy' or 'Christian Nationalist' variety) Yes, by itself, the hard right doesn't control the courts, Congress, the Presidency and the military. But a coalition made up of the hard right partnered with the center-right *does* control all of those things.
But, if we want to be truly accurate with our political taxonomies, we should remember that progressives are *not* the leftmost flank of American political ideology, and that the *actual* 'hard left'--the Anarchist and Communist left--control next to nothing in the U.S. (It is also notable and amusing that left-anarchists and communists despise the center-left far more than they despise the right)
The hard right does control a few fairly important societal institutions with national influence, such as the Presidency, the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court.
I don't think you understand the hard right at all if you think that Trump, Congress, or the Supreme Court are that. They are conservative to center right, by the standards of people who actually inhabit the right side of the center line. And most of those who are center-right to mainstream conservative don't even know what the "hard right" in their cyberspace venues are even talking about. I certainly don't, and I don't care, nor does anyone that I know. The hard right is just as crazy as the hard Left, and have very little influence, as I said.
If you don’t know what the hard right are talking about, why are you so sure that Trump et al are not hard right?
Your are just a troll
Funny thing is when you end up living in some obscure foreign town of a hundred thousand or so, and there are 5 other resident Americans, you will know and socialize with them all. I mean in a place like Indonesia, Madagascar or China, someplace where languages are obscure. We have a lot more in common than people realize.
I do find my fellow Dems to be more standoffish than the Rs, and I think anyone is missing out by not living amongst Republicans. Republicans, especially rural types, seldom ask political opinions. I've lived in Wyoming and Utah a lot, great people especially when something needs doing, they aren't shy of pitching in. Not too judgemental also.
Voting is a matter of checking a couple of boxes once every few years. Neighbors are everyday. Very different things.
I'd like to see a newer More In Common study.
I would argue that hermetically sealed ideological bubbles pretty much are a left-wing phenomenon, simply because it is impossible to for a right-winger to escape leftist messaging. The left controls almost all of the media, Madison Avenue, and Hollywood, which means their ideology is blasted 24/7. People on the right will constantly hear the left's message whether they want to or not.
A left winger simply needs to avoid Fox and will never hear right wing opinions.
Indeed, news media is a small subset of total media.
I don’t think that it is possible to get the extremists to moderate their opinions, but it should be possible to elect more centrists to public offices. By “showing the flag” for moderation and compromise, organizations like the Liberal Patriot keep that hope alive, but it is not apparent that they have the same popular following as the extreme wings of the two main political parties.
Establishment bungling is what created the hard left and hard right in the first place. I don't see how electing more is going to help.
Is there a category for people whose beliefs put him on one side but whose disgust with everyone’s behavior makes him recoil from both sides?
It would be interesting to see how these perceptions change by religious affiliation. My guess is that you would see some significant differences if you look at this. Separately it takes a real effort not to fall into stereotyping others. It is truly aggravating that the most educated in our society are either blind to the need or too caught up with other things to put in the effort. Thanks for the article.
"In other words, while Republicans’ misperceptions of Democrats do not improve with higher levels of education, Democrats’ understanding of Republicans actually gets worse with every additional degree they earn" This used to be called "Snobbery."
It's the media. For the corporate media, it might be a business model (more clicks) or a reflection of the concentration of more extremists there. True of the dominant leftist side but also the smaller conservative media. This leads to different realities. As for the less visible world of personal media ,that is self-segregating, often around completely apolitical topics. Politics does sometimes intrude. I have heard unverifiable tales of people being kicked out of knitting forums for political opinions.
"Democrats’ understanding of Republicans actually gets worse with every additional degree they earn." Could this also have something to do with the subject matter of the degrees that many Democrats are probably earning? You won't find many Republicans in "studies" majors, I think. Gender studies, race studies, social studies, much of psychology, is totally contaminated at the university level now with queer theory, DEI, racialism, identity politics, grievance culture, and other nonsense to the exclusion of any real content that might exist in the subject. These "studies" majors teach students that Republicans are bad, horrible people who are all Hitlers and evil, violent monsters, creating caricatures of Republicans that not only are entirely false, but are so silly that anyone who engaged even one brain cell would realize that no actual person exists that matches this stereotype.
Your claim that “these "studies" majors teach students that Republicans are bad, horrible people who are all Hitlers and evil, violent monsters, creating caricatures of Republicans that not only are entirely false, but are so silly that anyone who engaged even one brain cell would realize that no actual person exists that matches this stereotype” is itself a caricature that is so silly that anyone who engaged even one brain cell would realize that no actual person exists that matches this stereotype. I live in Berkeley, and none of my very lefty friends believe anything remotely like that. Some of them actually teach these courses, and I’ve seen their syllabi, and talked to them, and none of them teach anything like that.
I think the reason you believe otherwise is that you know lefty people mostly through online discussion boards, and see conservative people face-to-face. Because I live in Berkeley, I see liberal people mostly faced-to-face and conservatives mostly online, so my experience is almost the opposite of yours. My experience of online people, left and right, is that they demonize everyone they talk to. There is something about the medium that does that to people. I have to watch myself constantly to make sure I don’t do it myself. I don’t always succeed. I may not have succeeded here.
"no actual person exists that matches this stereotype" Says the person who says Democrats don't even engage one brain cell.
I happen to inhabit conservative country, and am part of that culture. I have never met anyone who even remotely resembles the monster that the Dems say that all Republicans are. And yes, if they engaged their brains in any way they would realize that their stereotype of violent, enraged, dumb hulking guys spending all their time looking for inoffensive liberals to beat up is really stupid and doesn't represent any kind of reality. I'll hang out with a working class guy any day before I'd spend a minute with an angry left winger. I've been around working guys all my life and though there are some rough ones, as in any group, most of them are great. And I'm one of those "educated women" who are supposed to be liberal.
A very eye-opening analysis as regards the misperceptions held about those with sharply differing views than our own.
However, wouldn't it logically follow then that our political parties are at greatest risk of embracing extremist if minority elements when they share about equal popular support?
Winning is everything in politics, and Democrats did two very dangerous things in 2024 in their unsuccessful quest to win at any price.
First, they looked the other way and, by their silence, were complicit in allowing and lying about the millions of undocumented foreigners permitted to cross our nation's borders illegally, apparently in the current or future hope of padding their party's voting roles.
Secondly, after defeating Sen. Bernie Sanders, the self-professed Democrat-Socialist in the primaries, the party embraced his idealogy in a bid to win over his followers.
It did not succeed and arguably even backfired after the party's progressive Left tilt.
But it does reinforce the point that even smaller numbers can have oversized impact on a party's, and by extension the nation's, direction. Diligence is in order, as is principle.
There are beliefs, and then there is actuality. Immigration was often an afterthought for most Americans, until Biden and Dems, purposefully imported 10 million unvetted migrants, without a single extra housing unit, healthcare worker or bilingual teacher. Had Greg Abbott not spread the pain, by bussing a tiny fraction of migrants to Blue Cities, Biden and Harris might well have invited 20 million new arrivals. Dem actions made immigration important to Rep voters, not racism.
Likewise, for relocation decisions. Today an attorney for Montgomery, Maryland schools stood in front of SCOTUS and insisted preschoolers and other elementary students, must be present for literature lessons on transgenderism and sexual relationships. Parents were not requesting the lessons end, only that their children be allowed to opt out, with authorized absences. The schools insisted children must be informed, between the ages of 3-5, their parents may have misgendered them at birth, and that sexual relationships come in a multitude of forms.
If someone, personally, chooses to teach their 5 year old, he can choose his gender, and the differing mechanics of straight and gay sex, that is fine with most Reps. However, if someone does not want the subjects introduced, in public school, to their Montgomery, Maryland Kindergartner, it is nearly impossible for them to remain a resident, unless one can afford private school. The latter does not render a parent intolerant, but rather out of options. Reps will relocate, not because they do not wish to dwell amongst Dems, but because of policy, that cannot be escaped.
Very well said!
First I would ask for a breakdown of the numbers by regions.
"Even independents can’t always correctly judge where others stand on the issues of the day, a sign that less partisan people also sometimes struggle to assess things accurately."
The issue is where can one get the information to form such opinions of others. I have two adult children and I find their views diverse by their diversity of friends they have, but ignorant of the larger picture. One democrat couple, he and we have been friends since elementary school, highly intelligent wife I had to block and then I just got off Facebook. Her insult were so wide and generalized and I told my friend she might want to realize who she is insulting before posting her poison. 60 years of friendship and he said if you block her block me too. I am the executor of his estate. I said I had no reason to block him. In fact I quit listening to her a long time ago. She decided that she had the right to horn in on a conversati0on he and I were having to hurl more personal insults. I understand it all, but my wife who has tons of common sense, is more in tune with the world than these two are. And the ironic part is those complaining about their 401K. They are all still well ahead of where they started. The stock market always come back. Seems the more intelligent one is, the less of the future they can see.
I don't dispute that Republicans move to Republican subdivisions and Democrats to Democratic subdivisions, but how do they know? Unless the house search takes place during election season when yard signs provide a clue, it's been my experience that Democratic houses look pretty much like Republican houses from the outside, and doorknocking around the neighborhood to determine its political slant would make you suspect before you even moved in.
Personally, I look for flags. A row of American flags being flown says Trump supporters. I also look for cars and bumper stickers. Like, "I bought this before Elon went crazy." That's a liberal neighborhood.
Can COMMON SENSE around the issues enter in to this conversation?
Canada has managed polarization better than the United States. Perhaps social media is not as important in identity formation in Canada. Canadian unity has also benefited from the election of Trump.
I'd love for some group like this to begin. With the knowledge that not everyone will agree on every issue and that is okay. We are not robots yet. Still humans.
If you're interested in something like that, I'd check out a group called Braver Angels. They provide a space for Ds and Rs to talk with each other, judgment-free, about real issues that they disagree on. Their methodology has actually been proven to help reduce partisan animosity. https://braverangels.org/
I am. And thank you. It will help me to remember how to do this. I've sadly forgotten. I will not shame you for giving me this information. I know how to behave. I'm just out of practice.