"They're the violent, crazy ones!": How polarization warps our views of our political opponents

Interactive Transcript

spk_0 I recently wrote a piece about political polarization for the site, the liberal patriot, titled,

spk_0 It's All the Other Sides Fault.

spk_0 That piece included some ideas I think are very important for understanding toxic conflict,

spk_0 but that are rarely discussed.

spk_0 For example, I think group differences are an important aspect of conflict.

spk_0 Groups in conflict will always have various differences, and those differences mean that

spk_0 rage and fear will manifest in very different ways.

spk_0 These differences make it easy for people in both groups to find bad or extreme aspects

spk_0 about the quote other side that aren't present for their own side.

spk_0 This in turn aids people in both groups in finding what seems like compelling, persuasive

spk_0 evidence that the toxic conflict they're in is all the other sides fault.

spk_0 No matter what your politics are, I think it's important to understand conflict dynamics.

spk_0 When we lack a good understanding of how conflict works, we'll tend to act in ways that further

spk_0 inflame and amplify the conflict.

spk_0 Ironically, we'll often act in ways that give more power and strength to our most angry

spk_0 and contemptuous opponents.

spk_0 If you like this piece or are skeptical about it, I hope you check out my work on toxic

spk_0 polarization.

spk_0 I have two books on polarization, which you can learn about at American-anger.com.

spk_0 One is for a politically liberal audience, the other is more general, and is written for

spk_0 all Americans.

spk_0 In those books, I attempt to address common objections and skepticism aimed at attempts

spk_0 to reduce polarization from people on the left and people on the right.

spk_0 Or you might like to subscribe to my sub-stack on this topic, which is at diffusingamericananger.substack.com.

spk_0 And yes, if you're wondering, this episode is being read by a robotic version of my voice.

spk_0 I'm quite busy these days, so just doing what I can to get out some content easily.

spk_0 I'm sorry about my robotic voice.

spk_0 You can find the Liberal Patriot site at LiberalPatriot.com.

spk_0 This piece of mine was published September 19th, 2025.

spk_0 If this topic interests you, you might like checking out that piece because it has quite

spk_0 a few resources linked from it.

spk_0 Okay, here's the piece.

spk_0 It's all the other sides fault.

spk_0 How we convince ourselves our opponents are dumb and evil, and we're blameless.

spk_0 When there's a dangerous fire, most people's first instinct is to grab a hose,

spk_0 not waste time trying to figure out how it started.

spk_0 Many believe the same about our politics.

spk_0 Stop the intellectual analysis and both sides and just help us defeat the bad actors.

spk_0 You hear it from Democrats and anti-Trump folks, and you hear it from Republicans and others angry at the left.

spk_0 But toxic polarization isn't a normal fire.

spk_0 It's a decades-long, slowly spreading blaze that many of us unknowingly feed every day,

spk_0 with contempt, cheap shots, and worst-case stories about them.

spk_0 Many of us tell ourselves stories about how ignorant, misinformed, and even evil the other side is,

spk_0 which acts as an accelerant.

spk_0 Our contempt and fear lead to more support for increasingly hostile,

spk_0 defeat them at all costs, approaches to politics, and public life.

spk_0 And if we can't figure out a way to put out this fire,

spk_0 it will put our experiment in self-government at grave risk.

spk_0 Can both sides be right?

spk_0 A major barrier to reducing toxic polarization is that so many of us,

spk_0 especially those who are highly politically involved,

spk_0 see our current toxic conflict as clearly the other side's fault.

spk_0 Many Republicans point to Democrats large and rapid,

spk_0 attitudinal shifts on issues like immigration, abortion, gender, policing, and more.

spk_0 Shifts they argue haven't been mirrored in scale on the right.

spk_0 These changes, compounded by what they perceive as harsh moral judgment from the left,

spk_0 have led many to conclude the left cause this conflict.

spk_0 On the other side, Democrats have become infuriated by Trump's contemptuous behaviors,

spk_0 rule-breaking, and refusal to accept the 2020 election.

spk_0 They believe there is no democratic version of someone with Trump's divisive personality

spk_0 and pension for defying democratic norms, and this leads many to conclude the right cause this conflict.

spk_0 People in both groups focus on the grievances that alarm them most,

spk_0 but often struggle to understand what bothers their adversaries.

spk_0 From the outside, our opponents' complaints can look minor,

spk_0 silly, or misinformed compared to our concerns,

spk_0 which we, naturally, see as legitimate and based in reality.

spk_0 The more we subscribe to these narratives, the more we risk becoming arrogant.

spk_0 Convince that you'd have to be an idiot, not to see which group is worse and more at fault

spk_0 for our conflict and division.

spk_0 All this serves to fan the flames of toxic polarization.

spk_0 Still, it's important to acknowledge that these competing narratives are built on true foundations.

spk_0 Regardless of which group's grievances are more defensible,

spk_0 the primary us versus them narratives rest unlogically defensible foundations.

spk_0 There are myriad data points and so many events unfolding around us on a daily basis

spk_0 that nobody can accurately process all of it, at least not in any objective, unbiased way.

spk_0 We thus rely on stories, stereotypes, and heuristics to help us make sense of things.

spk_0 So, even when we agree on the same facts, the specific moral frames through which we process the

spk_0 world can lead to entirely different views of what those facts mean and what they pretend for the

spk_0 future. This helps explain how rational, well-meaning people can reason their way to polar opposite

spk_0 views that they believe are good and righteous. A dynamic philosopher Kevin Dorst calls

spk_0 rational polarization. If we can lower our own arrogance, we might develop greater understanding

spk_0 of people who possess very different values and beliefs and perhaps act in ways that persuade

spk_0 instead of inflame, even as we still push for the causes we believe in.

spk_0 The fog of conflict Part of the difficulty in recognizing that other people are often

spk_0 more rational than we might think is that toxic conflict deranges our thinking,

spk_0 leading us to adopt overly pessimistic and catastrophizing views about them.

spk_0 Conflict rarely feels complicated when we're in it. Many of us simply see people on the other side

spk_0 and conclude, they are the aggressors, we are just defending ourselves. But these simple,

spk_0 black and white stories blind us to the complexity of the world and the people in it.

spk_0 As historian Jeffrey Blaney has observed, each side in a war tends to see history through its own

spk_0 eyes. Most serious conflicts have many causes, cross-currence and feedback loops, which makes it hard

spk_0 for the parties involved to ever get a clear view of the conflict. He writes that,

spk_0 the distinction between warmaker and peacemaker is often a mirage. One well-known aspect of conflict

spk_0 that obscures our view of people on the other side is the tendency to see them as all the same,

spk_0 as a monolithic, homogenous mass. This leads to all sorts of misunderstandings, including perception

spk_0 gaps, which convince people that the other side is much more extreme than they actually are.

spk_0 Another confusing aspect of conflict is that people in large groups always possess different

spk_0 traits and exhibit different behaviors. In the US, Democrats and Republicans differ on average

spk_0 in background, life experience, values, and moral priorities. This leads to differences in how each

spk_0 group manifests their anger and anxiety and even the assumptions they make about the world.

spk_0 For example, a mostly working class blue collar community is likely to come to these things

spk_0 differently than a mostly college educated group would. Each group will apply different types of

spk_0 social pressures on its members when it comes to their behavior and how they approach the conflict.

spk_0 And because these differences are usually substantial, each side can point to bad things they do

spk_0 that we don't do and then treat these things as definitive proof that their opponents are the problem.

spk_0 But the causes of conflict are often complex and two groups in conflict will always contribute to it

spk_0 in different ways. One, it's therefore worth examining some of the ways in which Republicans and

spk_0 Democrats can both arrive at the view that it's all the other sides fault, depending on which

spk_0 events and group traits they focus on. One, perceived support for violence. Many people believe it's

spk_0 the other side that's more violent, that they are the ones whose supporters are more likely to

spk_0 endorse political violence or at least more tolerant of such violence. Many on the left believe

spk_0 that right-wing extremism is by far a much more serious threat than liberal side extremism.

spk_0 They point to events like the Charlottesville Unite the right march, the assault on Nancy Pelosi's

spk_0 husband, murders by far right extremists like the 2022 Buffalo New York, mass murder, and the 2019

spk_0 El Paso, Texas, mass murder. And perhaps most prominently January 6th, the event that to them

spk_0 most embodies the violent threat posed by Trump and his diehard supporters.

spk_0 On the right, many see liberals as the violent ones. Conservatives focus on different events and

spk_0 different manifestations of social disruptions, including things like violence during the 2020

spk_0 George Floyd protests, aggressive tactics, by progressive activists, and most recently, the assassination

spk_0 of Charlie Kirk. They believe too many liberals either support or tacitly condone militancy and violence.

spk_0 Sometimes both groups even find evidence of the other side's violent nature in the same event.

spk_0 For example, following the assassination attempt on Trump and Pennsylvania, some of his supporters

spk_0 cast blame on liberals, while some liberals pointed to the shooters past political activity to

spk_0 score points against Republicans. Some people react in cruel and callous ways to violence aimed at

spk_0 the other side, which their opponents interpret as proof of pervasive sickness and immorality.

spk_0 The result of all this filtering is that both groups can end up genuinely wondering why is the

spk_0 other side so violent? Why do so many of them support violence? Influencing these views is an

spk_0 instinct many of us have to downplay the significance of violence associated with our group,

spk_0 even as we consider violence associated with the other side hugely consequential.

spk_0 If someone kills a political figure on the other side, we might be quick to imagine a deranged,

spk_0 mentally unwell individual. But if someone kills a political figure on our side,

spk_0 there can be a strong temptation to give it great meaning and quickly designate them as all culpable.

spk_0 The number of people who have committed politically motivated murder in recent decades is

spk_0 extremely small relative to the size of our population. We should recognize that even in the most

spk_0 unified country, there will always be some people drawn to hate and violence. Moreover, many in the

spk_0 media and political realm vastly overstate the number of Americans who actually support political

spk_0 violence. It's natural for violent events to upset and scare us. But we should consider whether

spk_0 we're overreacting to what our rare incidents of violence, statistically speaking, in an otherwise

spk_0 very peaceful country, and how our tendency to cherry-pick bad behaviors and see the worst in

spk_0 each other can amplify divides and even lead to self-fulfilling prophecies.

spk_0 Second class and cultural stereotypes. The divide is also heavily influenced by education and class.

spk_0 Democrats tend to have higher levels of formal education and are more concentrated in high-income

spk_0 professional sectors and urban areas. Republicans, by contrast, are overrepresented in working class,

spk_0 rural, and religious communities and are less likely to hold advanced degrees. These differences

spk_0 help each side create negative, oversimplified stories about the other. On the left, it's common to

spk_0 hear that Republicans and Trump supporters are anti-science, easily manipulated, or even in a cult.

spk_0 They're willfully ignorant, duped by conspiracy theories, or two intellectually backward to see

spk_0 what's obvious to smarter, more educated people. You'll find liberals saying things like,

spk_0 of course, education makes you more politically liberal. That's because conservatism is backwards.

spk_0 On the right, it's often the inverse. Liberals are out of touch elites captured by academic jargon

spk_0 and niche activist ideas. They're arrogant, disconnected from the lives of normal Americans,

spk_0 and smugly dismissive of, or even hostile toward, people who aren't like them.

spk_0 Again, some of these narratives may contain elements of truth, but in the hands of highly angry

spk_0 political actors, they will often involve worst case interpretations and excessive contempt.

spk_0 What's missing is empathy and nuance, understanding that by and large, people on the other side

spk_0 have real, defensible fears and frustrations, and that each group's fears influence the others.

spk_0 Three, accusations of hate. Democrats and Republicans both believe that people on the other side

spk_0 hate them much more than they do. This is one of many self-reinforcing elements of our conflict.

spk_0 When we think they hate us, we are naturally inclined to act in more hostile ways towards them.

spk_0 This in turn encourages them to treat us worse, which makes us treat them worse,

spk_0 and on and on we continue down a doom spiral of toxic conflict.

spk_0 In the course of working on reducing polarization, I've talked to many Republicans who focus on

spk_0 the toxicity they've seen and personally experienced from liberals. It's true that there are

spk_0 many pieces of evidence one can find to support that narrative. For example, surveys show that

spk_0 Democrats are more likely to cut off friendships or even family members for political reasons.

spk_0 Some Republicans are tempted to use this as another building block for the, this is all Democrats'

spk_0 fault narrative. However, another way of interpreting that statistic is that many Democrats and others

spk_0 too are turned off by Trump's divisive personality and by those who support him even in the face of it,

spk_0 or who even emulate his confrontational and even dehumanizing rhetoric.

spk_0 Group differences can leave many of us concluding with certainty, see, this shows this is all their fault.

spk_0 In these moments, we should try our best to strive for humility and to remember that the complexity

spk_0 of the world and of conflict makes it easy for us to see what we seek to find, but harder to see

spk_0 the best in our adversaries. Four, cultural versus political power. Over at least the past few decades,

spk_0 politically liberal people and ideas have come to dominate key cultural institutions like academia,

spk_0 journalism, and the entertainment industry. This imbalance in cultural power has led to an

spk_0 abundance of conservative aimed insults and provocations generated by the people in those institutions.

spk_0 That cultural power imbalance sometimes augments other group differences. For example,

spk_0 many conservatives believe there exists a powerful politically liberal establishment,

spk_0 one that at best misunderstands them and at worst distains them. Feeling like an underdog fighting a

spk_0 vast, culturally dominant adversary can generate more support for an aggressive,

spk_0 contemptuous personality like Trump's. For many of his supporters, his belligerence isn't

spk_0 necessarily a flaw, but rather a justified form of defiance against an establishment that is

spk_0 entirely against them. But while liberals have dominated the culture for at least the past decade,

spk_0 they control few levers of political power at this moment. Consider America's key institutions,

spk_0 the presidency, US Senate, US House, Supreme Court, Governorships, and State Legislatures.

spk_0 Republicans have more power than Democrats in every single one, and many Democrats fear they

spk_0 may be essentially locked out of power in key institutions in the near future. So, although they

spk_0 continue to hold immense cultural power, many Democrats likely feel powerless in the face of Trump's

spk_0 second term, especially when he has the support of the Congress, and often the Supreme Court too.

spk_0 If we treat our political divides like a normal fire, one that simply requires stamping out a

spk_0 perceived threat, we will continue to make missteps, convinced that we're helping extinguish the

spk_0 danger when in fact we're feeding it with more kindling. To put out this fire, we must first

spk_0 understand how it spreads. In the warped stories we tell ourselves about our opponents, humans

spk_0 are skilled storytellers. We're good at taking new tidbits of information and fitting them into

spk_0 our existing narratives. In the age of the internet, it is easier than ever before to use these

spk_0 bits to construct and bolster our preferred narratives. Decent people build stories from certain facts,

spk_0 emotions, and social worlds that make sense to them, but many come to view those who have different

spk_0 stories with contempt, accelerating the fire. This is how we become arrogant, how we so easily fall

spk_0 for the, it's obviously all their fault framings that keep us mired in toxicity and contempt.

spk_0 Everyone believes they are on the side of good, but it's often harder to see that in our ideological

spk_0 adversaries, only when we understand them as people who also believe their views to be good and

spk_0 righteous, the same as ourselves, will we be better positioned to work towards our goals without

spk_0 dehumanizing, to work to persuade instead of provoke, and to stop feeding the blaze, the vast

spk_0 majority of us wish to contain. A footnote, the biggest objection I hear to depolarization efforts

spk_0 is that people think it means embracing what they see as a false equivalency, a stance that both

spk_0 sides are equally bad, but it's possible to reject the idea that both sides have contributed equally

spk_0 while acknowledging that both Democrats and Republicans have in fact played some role in perpetuating

spk_0 our current conflict. Okay, that was the piece I wrote for Liberal Patriot. If you like this piece,

spk_0 or are skeptical about it, I hope you check out my work on this topic. I have two books on polarization

spk_0 which you can learn about at american-anger.com, or you can check out my sub-stack at defusing-american-anger.substack.com.

spk_0 This has been Zachary L. Wood. Thanks for listening.

spk_0 This podcast is part of the Mercury Network. To find your next favorite show, like mine,

spk_0 five random questions, visit mercurypodcast.com now.

"They're the violent, crazy ones!": How polarization warps our views of our political opponents

Interactive Transcript

Topics Covered

Related Episodes

Europa Universalis 5 Review

Happy Hour 562- She don't know who I is.

Hour 2: Friday Football Forecast

Game Scoop! 832: Our Favorite PS5 & Xbox Games

Share Episode