海角大神

Here鈥檚 a question worth considering: Who is in your sense of 鈥渦s鈥�? Politics fizzes and fractures along countless different lines, from ideology to race to gender. But democratic systems are really about finding where the 鈥渦s鈥� is on all these different axes.

In Sara Miller Llana鈥檚 cover story, the 鈥渦s鈥� is clearly defined along the lines of national origin or race. In the wake of Hurricane Dorian, the president of the Bahamas has vowed not to rebuild homes for unauthorized immigrants nor to serve them in shelters. As one Bahamian told Sara: 鈥淲e know [the Haitians] are people, but we are poor, too.鈥�

The result is that the two sides are talking past each other, with common ground hard to come by. Indeed, few issues create a clearer sense of 鈥渦s鈥� and 鈥渢hem鈥� than immigration and race.

Yet across many parts of the West, polls show that the traditional sense of 鈥渦s鈥� is fracturing. For liberals in particular, 鈥渦s鈥� increasingly includes unauthorized immigrants, and racism is a systemic problem 鈥渨e鈥� need to solve 鈥� it鈥檚 not just 鈥渢heir鈥� problem.

This shifting sense of 鈥渦s鈥� is at the core of the polarization we see today in Western democracies. Throw in views on the economy and on religion, and these two senses of 鈥渦s鈥� get even sharper.

The danger, political scientists point out, is that these political tribes are becoming so sharply defined that we are viewing them as a stronger and more influential part of our identity. Experiments have repeatedly shown that people can be swayed to consider a position contrary to their own 鈥� but only if the argument is coming from someone on their side of the issue. In other words, we鈥檙e very open-minded 鈥� so long as the person talking to us is one of 鈥渦s.鈥�

鈥淎n emerging body of research ... has demonstrated that 鈥榩olarization鈥� in the public is based less on the issues, and more on the growing strength of partisan social identities and the 鈥榰s vs. them鈥� mentalities they create,鈥� writes Ryan Strickler for the London School of Economics blog.

How, then, do we begin to knit together a new sense of 鈥渦s鈥�? The current approach is, essentially, to convince the other side that they鈥檙e wrong. We see that approach reflected in our politics: anger, frustration, and a sense that compromise is capitulation.

But an article from Forbes suggests a different approach. It points to something called the Ideological Turing Test, which boils down to the question: Can you make a convincing argument for the other side? Few people can, and that鈥檚 because most don鈥檛 really know how the other side thinks or what their best arguments are. When you know the other side鈥檚 best arguments, something transformational happens.

鈥淎 key 鈥� the key 鈥� to the deliberative democratic ideal is mutual respect,鈥� writes Mr. Strickler. 鈥淣ot any political discussion will do; discussion and debate must be marked by open-mindedness, recognition of the legitimacy of moral differences, and a goal of achieving consensus.鈥� In short, effective democratic politics must be perpetually reforging a new 鈥渦s.鈥�