Political Polarization

How Incivility Divides Us

In political debates, there will always be the so called “good guy” and  “bad guy” that can vary depending every individual. Each side presents different arguments and beliefs, and although the debaters and viewers don't always blatantly show disgust and disinterest for the other side, on the inside these negative feelings very much do exist. Overall Mutz believes that the act of explicitly expressing these negative feelings and showing uncivil behavior can lead to political polarization because these actions cause partisans to think even less of the opposing side than before by strengthening and stimulating their emotional feelings.

During Murtz's mock political talk show experiment, she observed two very different groups: one polite and proper group of actors that debated respectfully and peacefully and one loud, impolite group of actors that debated harshly and blatantly. The more offensive and harsh group was the one that sparked the most interest; the attitudes toward the opposing group became more and more negative with every emotional and dramatic exchange being made. Therefore, polite debates are considered "boring", as they are monotonous and no different from any regular conversation while active, uncivil debates are "interesting" since they're unique and gain attention.

While people's level of emotional arousal increases from the exposure of uncivil behavior, it doesn't necessarily mean these people actually wholeheartedly enjoy the content of the debate. In fact, the actual content could really be quite offensive to the viewers if certain negative, unacceptable remarks such as racial slurs or gender/sexuality insults are made. (Martin.8. 2015) It's not that people love the statements and wish to continue watching for the sake of pleasure, but rather they almost have no choice but to do so due to shock or curiosity. Likewise, it could also be the very opposite. Incivility brings in an increase of paid attention. Bill and Hillary Clinton actually only use their TiVo to records programs so that they can go back, play over them, and rant on debaters's positions and arguments.

In addition, people may not even understand the actual content of the exchange itself, as the actual things said aren't the most interesting. People will only remember any striking insults or yelling. And it doesn't necessarily have to be for a publicly filmed debate. It could be for a prerecorded advertisement or article. For example, back during American's early days, the election between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson sparked a great deal of interest. Opponents of Adams called him a, “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." and opponents of Jefferson called him a "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father." (Jackson. 24. 2015) If you were to ask someone why Jefferson was a mean spirited person, chances are that person wouldn't even know. They only remembered the big part: The impolite insult. The various reasons behind it don't matter as much.

Modern day media and technology only make things worse, possibly making the general public think society is more polarized than it really is. The up close camera shots create tense situation where certain individuals are being focused on. One reason why the Obama-Brewer tip off attracted more attention than the also very famous Bush-Webb tip off was simply because of greater camera exposure. (Jackson. 13. 2015). In addition, the mere act labeling groups, such as blacks and whites, Democrats and Republicans, or men or women, can cause people to believe society is more divided than it really is due to everyone being placed into different categories. (Levendusky, Malhotra. 3. 2015). For example, during the survey on the issue of capital gains tax cuts, many Americans though the public was 84 percent more polarized than they actually are. With people already thinking society is more split up than it really is, political polarization is bound to happen to some degree. Political polarization has increased over the years, and the greater exposure and emphasis on civil disobedience from the media will only worsen it.

Overall, incivility has the ability to both spark interest and cause a debate to lean towards the extremes due to the extreme nature of incivility. No matter what time period we look at, we will find several occasions and effects of this happening. With the growing use of media and technology in society, emphasis on these extreme statements will only continue to growing, reinforcing people's outlook of the "good guy" and "bad guy" and diminishing the similarities and agreements of the two opposing sides.

MLA Citation
Jackson, David. "Obama and Incivility: A Presidential Tradition." USA Today. Gannett, 26 Jan. 2012. Web. 28 Jan. 2015. <http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/01/obamas-presidency-and-the-tradition-of-incivility/1#.VMjMYGiUeZM>.
Martin, Michel. "Sparking A Better Political Discourse." NPR. NPR, n.d. Web. 28 Jan. 2015. <http://www.npr.org/2012/01/09/144904623/sparking-a-better-political-discourse>.
Levendusky, Matt, and Neil Malhotra. "The Media Make Us Think We’re More Polarized than We Really Are." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 5 Feb. 2014. Web. 27 Jan. 2015. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/02/05/the-media-make-us-think-were-more-polarized-than-we-really-are/>.