I bought this book, which was published in 2018 after seeing a review. It contains the most informative explanation I have ever seen. “Political polarization in America is at an all-time high and the conflict has evolved beyond differences of opinion on political issues. Finally, she examines the implications of her argument for the future of American democracy. While Mason is cautious about how easily we can quell the identity conflict that is currently at the heart of American politics, she discusses several scientifically grounded measures we should consider. Some of them are classic remedies for conflicts between groups highlighted by psychologists, such as for example. B the strengthening of contacts between Democrats and Republicans and the search for common goals or identities that can unite people across partisan divides. Others focus on possible changes in the parties themselves, including greater insistence among party leaders in setting standards of comity and tolerance and the prospect of further division within the Republican Party, which “represses cross-cutting divisions that suppress social polarization and social distancing.” Here is a manuscript of a book meeting published under the title Peterson, David A.M. “Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity Lilliana Mason, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018, p. 192.” Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique 52, n° 4 (2019): 961-962. DOI: 10.1017/S0008423919000076. Published with permission. They have become increasingly homogeneous parties, with Democrats now firmly tied to identities such as liberal, secular, urban, low-income, Hispanic, and black parties.
Dr. Lilliana Mason is an associate professor in the Department of Administration and Policy at the University of Maryland, College Park, at the time of writing. If there is only one slogan that sums up American politics today, it is “polarization.” Although citizens and commentators use the term lose to refer to the relentlessness that characterizes relations between Democrats and Republicans, political scientists often have something very specific in mind when talking about polarization. Today, this “something” is the tendency of both political parties not to like each other strongly – what scientists call “affective polarization.” You can buy this title in these fine bookstores. Outside the United States, you will find our international sales information. “Today, Democrats and Republicans have much more information about who their social enemies and supporters are and have little reason to find common ground. In the first week, the teams were kept separate. The guys on each team got to know each other and felt like a group.
“What if the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties decided to adopt tolerant rhetoric towards the opposing team? What if party prototypes started discussing real differences instead of demonizing their opponents? What if the opinion leaders of the party (of both sides) began to talk politics praising the compromises and recognizing the humanity and validity of the opposing team? What if there was a new opposite version of the gopac memo, in which demonizing words would be discouraged rather than encouraged? But the most important social gap between the parties, which rivaled the difference in ideology, was race. .