We “rethink the week” with Valerie Endress, Professor of Political Communication at Rhode Island College; Stephen Pimpare, Professor at the University of New Hampshire and a nationally recognized expert on poverty, homelessness, and U.S. social policy; and Dean Spiliotis, Civic Scholar and Presidential Scholar at Southern New Hampshire University.
HOW DO WE END THE PARTISAN DIVIDE AND ONCE AGAIN BECOME “UNITED”?
We recognize that, in order to analyze major issues (like the impeachment trial and the Democratic primary race), we have to take into account the deeply entrenched partisan divide in this country. People can and do wall themselves off from any kind of viewpoint that differs from their own. They have their own social media venues, their own news and TV echo chambers (Fox, MSNBC), and, often, they live in neighborhoods and socialize with friends who agree with them on most political and social issues. As Spiliotis put it, we humans have a “psychological desire to eliminate cognitive dissonance.” We work hard to “filter out the noise” of other voices. If we hear about 5 polls, we pay attention to the one that most supports our pre-existing points of view.
Therefore it is extremely unlikely that any of us will be able to change the minds of people who now disagree with us. How does this affect our analysis? In terms of choosing a presidential candidate, it means that no Democrat has much chance of picking off voters at the margins of the political spectrum. Trump voters are no more likely to vote for Biden than for Sanders or Warren: most likely, they’ll stick with Trump in the general election. We have to take these realities into account when we make our decisions about what to do today.
A more fundamental question is: If cognitive dissonance is so powerful, what actions would a “democracy czar (or deity)” take in order to return our country to its place as a beacon of democracy, freedom, and hope? We can’t just sit around and complain about our political dysfunction, and then go off in a corner and weep. If we can’t change people’s minds through persuasion, let’s figure out what we *can* do? How can we put the “United” back in “United States”? How can we get people working together to build better lives for everyone (not just the 1%)? At the same time, how can we help the US develop more humane relations with the diverse people of the world?
CAN WE ENVISION A PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATE WINNING THE PRESIDENCY?
We also discuss the media’s recent acknowledgement that Bernie Sanders might actually be a legitimate, viable candidate for president. He leads the polls not only in voter support, but also in likeability, voter trust, being honest, and now he’s almost caught up with Biden in his support among African-Americans (in addition to his traditional young voters).
Of course, polling is unreliable. And voter support — e.g., by young people — does not necessarily mean that these voters will actually show up and vote. Maybe this year is different; young activists certainly seem more energized now than ever before (well except, maybe, for the 1960’s). On the other hand, it may be harder for college students to vote than in previous elections because they’re more likely to be holding part- or full-time jobs, so they may not even have any time to vote no matter how much they want to.
Many Democratic voters may not make their final decisions until they’re in the voting booth. Whichever candidate’s policies they favor, Democrats are laser-focused on which candidate can beat Trump in the general election. It’s possible that, as they’re about to pull the lever, they decide that it’s more realistic to believe that a progressive Democrat can beat Trump than a centrist can.
Democratic voters also know that, even if the most extreme Democrat gets elected president, they won’t be able to pass any extreme policies because they’ll still face a Republican Congress (or even a moderate Congress with a Democratic majority). So even Bernie has zero chance of making Medicare for All the law on day one of his presidency. (In fact, Bernie’s “damn bill” doesn’t call for M4A to go into effect until his fourth year in office. Warren’s “transition” proposal announces a 3-year window, which is essentially the same as Bernie’s except that they describe it differently. Yet Warren is being pummeled on this “transition.” Shy? Simply because she’s a woman? Certainly Joe Biden has made more errors than Warren, but somehow he doesn’t get beaten up for them the way that Warren has.)
