The Real Source of Polarization | Re Tulsi Gabbard / Rubin Report | TaraElla Report S8

Today, I want to talk about polarization, what has gotten us here, and how to get out of it. In light of recent events, Tulsi Gabbard and Dave Rubin had a chat about the current levels of polarization, and the seriously negative consequences it has had. Indeed, Tulsi has been very concerned about this issue for some time now, and I think she is correct to be so worried. I guess, after all that has happened in the past few years, I think most of us can agree that polarization is bad, even dangerous. We should all work to put an end to it. But to do so, we need to think about where it comes from. What drives people to think of their fellow human beings as the enemy?

The answer, I think, lies in conformity thinking. The current polarization that is happening across the West is bad, because many people are sorted into two main camps, each with a set of expected positions on a wide range of issues, including the economy, the environment, cultural issues, and to some extent, even foreign policy. I need to stress that not everyone is neatly divided into these two camps. I personally take pride in the fact that I have my own positions, based on my own conscience and reasoning, for every issue, and I also congratulate all others who refuse to be sorted into the two big, opposing camps.

As a Moral Libertarian, I strongly believe that it is our moral duty to be independent thinkers, to arrive at our own conclusions with our own consciences. But the fact remains that a substantial number of people are now sorted into the two opposing camps, and that members of one camp are sometimes effectively considering members of the other camp as enemies. Now, this is a very unhealthy way of thinking indeed. So how did we get to this point?

It's because political parties function as coalitions. They have to, because in representative democracies, a political party has to secure majority support to govern. This is why, even though affirmative action and environmentalism are not inherently linked, they exist in the same party. I'm not saying one can't support both of these things, it's just that they are not logically linked. Similarly, even though religious conservatives and neoconservative hawks don't always agree with each other, they exist in the same party, which makes things awkward at times. Given that it is in the interests of establishment politicians to smooth over this awkwardness, they are naturally inclined to encourage people in one faction of their party to support the positions of all other factions of their party. Therefore, religious conservatives were also encouraged to be pro-Iraq War during the Bush era, for example. The establishment backed mass media has traditionally played the role of this messaging, and nowadays even social media is being used for this purpose, again backed by big establishment money.

Now, this kind of coalition politics makes life easy for establishment politicians, but it's very bad for producing morally sound policy, and the sharp divisions it creates is very bad for the soul of nations. Indeed, I consider coalition political thinking the root of much of today's political ills, including the dangerous levels of polarization. I mean, it's one thing that political parties have to build coalitions. It's certainly not healthy that the coalition becomes permanent and fixed across election cycles, and built into a cultural package that some people swallow whole as a default. It's certainly not healthy that the mainstream media echo chambers, and even some social media echo chambers, keep pushing the establishment's coalition politics down people's throats, as if they should naturally accept the whole package of positions. It dumbs down politics, and creates a permanent us-vs-them attitude that leads to today's extreme polarization.

Therefore, I think the best solution to deal with polarization is simply to encourage independent thinking. When you encourage independent thinking, people are naturally going to come up with a collection of positions that don't neatly align with one party or another. Somebody with such a collection of positions will find that different people become allies on different issues, and almost nobody would be a permanent enemy. Of course, the establishment won't like this. But society itself will become much healthier. Now, on a final note, Tulsi appears to be an independent thinker, but I am worried that Rubin is aligning himself too closely to the Republican party line, even though he doesn't think of himself as a Republican. I hope he seriously reconsiders this.