The Politics of Polarization

4min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

Michael Wolraich: Do we know it's really more polarizing now or is this availability, heuristic and the recency effect and all that? He says a debate in political science about this, I tend to side with the political scientists who say that's not really happening. The parties themselves like the average party position has polarized but that has happened without anyone changing their issue positions., said Wolraich. "I think also part of it is our experiences on social media"

The democratic ideal demands that the citizenry think critically about matters of public import. Yet many Democrats and Republicans in the United States have fallen short of that standard because political tribalism motivates them to acquire, perceive and evaluate political information in a biased manner. The result is an electorate that is more extreme, hostile and willing to reject unfavorable democratic outcomes.

Shermer and Redmond discuss: why we have political duopoly (Duverger’s law) • parties vs. policies • Are we living in a post-truth, fake-news, alternative facts world? • How do we know political polarization is worse now than in the past? • acquiring, perceiving, and evaluating political information • evaluating: false political information, political numbers and arguments, claims of rigged election • whataboutism • cognitive responsibilities of citizenship • cognitive biases • political polarization • myside bias • numeracy vs. innumeracy • solutions to the polarization problem.

Timothy J. Redmond received his PhD in political science from the University at Buffalo. He is an award-winning educator and author of over one hundred articles on critical thinking and politics. He is a professor at Daemen University where he teaches a political science and history course for education students.