Democrats are understandably celebrating the “blue wave” that overtook the U.S. in the midterm election, and many Republicans are stunned and disappointed by the magnitude of their losses. Neither response is surprising, of course. However, as a political psychologist, I can’t help but feel that the results should give hope to all Americans, regardless of political leaning. Let me explain why.
Extreme polarization is not good for democracy
For the past couple of decades, pundits have lamented the polarization of American politics. The conventional wisdom has been that we now live in two Americas, one red and one blue, and that never the twain shall meet. Stereotypes of affluent, educated, urban, wine-drinking liberals and working-class, rural, less-educated, beer-drinking, gun-toting conservatives proliferated. Politics seemed to have become a major dividing line between us.
Some political scientists maintained that most Americans are pragmatic moderates and that the level of polarization had been exaggerated, but most media coverage seemed to ignore that point of view. A more nuanced approach suggested that although issue polarization (differences in policy positions) was less pronounced, affective polarization (feelings toward those in the other party) was indeed extreme. In fact, one study documented that hostility toward those in the other political wing was so great that individuals would be more upset about their offspring marrying someone of the other party than marrying someone of a different race. Given the magnitude of the racial divide in the U.S., that was a remarkable finding.
This take on America as a deeply polarized society has some scary implications for our democracy. Democratic nations function successfully when the voters can be counted on to evaluate politicians and their policies. If polarization is so high that voters always approve of the politicians in their own party and disapprove of the ones in the other party, regardless of their actions, then we have a situation in which our government has no accountability. This would mean that politicians would have guaranteed support from their base no matter what. Why even have elections if they end up simply reflecting a count of the number of people in each party? A government of the people and for the people requires that the people pay attention and fairly evaluate whether our leaders are leading us in the right direction.
The recent election indicated that many people who had been supportive of President Trump and his party changed their minds. Their concerns about issues like affordability, an unpopular war in Iran, an extreme crackdown on immigrants suspected of being undocumented, financial support for what some consider a genocide in Gaza, to name a few, ended up outweighing their desire to stick with the party they had put in power. Painful as this might seem to Republicans, I would argue that it is better for the country as a whole to have an electorate that does not reflexively vote the same way in every election if there are significant reasons to endorse a change. We have to be able to count on the voters to hold our government accountable.
The president and his party shouldered the blame for their policies
In American culture, to hold someone accountable is to view them as responsible or to blame for a problem. Extensive research has shown that blame plays a major role in politics. Politicians who are blamed, particularly for the state of the economy and war, tend to pay a price in elections. One of the keys to Trump’s success has been an ability to avoid blame for his actions. Recall his statement during a 2016 campaign rally that he could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and wouldn’t lose any voters. Whether one supports Trump or not, it would be hard to argue that allowing a politician to get away with anything is a good practice. Again, accountability is key to democracy.
Therefore, it would seem to be a positive sign that voters, many of whom hold the president responsible for the problems our country faces, are holding him to account. It means that they are actually thinking about the administration’s policies and evaluating them. Wouldn’t we rather have an electorate that bases its voting on such evaluations instead of reflexively voting for the same person they voted for last time, regardless of the state of the country?
The culture wars are not as important as thought
Given the general assumption that the U.S. is involved in a war between red and blue value systems, it is perhaps not surprising that a number of Republican candidates focused on hot-button culture war issues like gender roles, LGBTQ+ rights, and DEI efforts in their campaigns. The goal was to convince Americans that some Democrats do not share mainstream American values. For example, James Talarico was attacked as a “woke” vegan who believes in multiple genders. Dr. Abdul El-Sayed was labeled a jihadist who supported the 9/11 attacks. Such rhetoric is aimed at labeling some candidates as “them” rather than “us” and thereby alienating American voters. Interestingly, that approach does not seem to have succeeded, and it may even have backfired. Though there are a number of possible explanations for this trend, a major factor was likely that American voters are much more focused on the economy and therefore do not pay much attention to such attacks. A more optimistic view is that stereotypes and prejudice do not carry the same power they once did. It is also possible that citizens are simply tired of these types of personal attacks. All three of these possibilities speak well of American voters.
Americans are tired of division and ugliness
In spite of increased political polarization in the U.S., polls indicate that Americans believe there is more that unites than divides us. It thus stands to reason that we would value an emphasis on unity and civility over division and ugliness. Although the verdict is still out on the degree to which disgust with the nastiness of politics had a role in this election, some pundits have suggested that it was a factor. Most people would likely prefer that politicians focus on the real problems we face as a society rather than tearing each other down.
Particularly notable in this regard was Vivek Ramaswamy’s cruel ad attacking the honesty of Dr. Amy Acton. Although some politicians might relish opportunities to verbally attack their opponents in hopes of instilling fear or revulsion in voters, it appears that many Americans are not buying what they are selling. Ramaswamy’s attack resulted in an outpouring of support for Dr. Acton, and she won the election. An attempt to elicit distrust of Dr. Acton actually gave rise to empathy for her.
Shouldn’t we all prefer civility over nastiness and cruelty, regardless of our political leaning? A number of Republicans were among the critics of Ramaswamy’s ad, suggesting that they are capable of holding fellow partisans accountable and that they would prefer more civil politics.
Encouraging signs for our democracy
Overall, we can be more optimistic that our democracy, which has become increasingly threatened by intense hostility across party lines, extreme within-party loyalty, a refusal to hold politicians accountable, divisive culture wars, racial and religious prejudice, and a shocking level of incivility, might be moving in a healthy direction. Hopefully, this trend will continue, and our society can live up to its promise.
