Panel discussion gives context for U.S. polarization

By Raena Hunter Doty Arts & Features Editor The Center for Inclusive Excellence (CIE) hosted a two-part Diversity Dialogues series about voting. The first event, titled “The Global Pulse of Democracy: U.S. and International Insights,” took place in the CIE Oct. 10. The panel discussion hosted two FSU professors - Giuliano Espino, professor of political science, and Jonathan Martin, professor of sociology - and David Smailes, former professor of political science. Each talked about issues within democracy and voting. Jerome Burke, CIE director, said the event was a “unique opportunity to gain insight into the state of our governance from a global perspective and to understand the key forces shaping the future.” Espino started his segment of the event by saying that there may be differences in how people understand democracy, “but one thing that is inherent in democracy is some form of compromise at the end of the day. “There is going to be debate and discussion between different and competing world views, but for a democratic society to function, there has to be some baseline level of understanding that allows for this compromise,” he added. He said one potential threat to democracy is high levels of polarization, where people tend to strongly agree with one side of the political spectrum and disagree with the other end. This creates a situation where not much compromise is possible. “The more polarized a society gets, the less a democracy can function. If government becomes about winning, if government becomes about giving your team as many ‘W’s’ as you possibly can because you don’t want to help the other side … democracy becomes very difficult,” Espino said. He said he first became concerned about polarization because, during the months preceding the 2020 presidential election, 30% of both Republicans and Democrats said political violence could be justified if the other side won. “And, of course, we know what happens after the 2020 election. Jan. 6th, and by that I mean all that lovely - and by ‘lovely’ I mean awful, disgusting - stuff,” he said. Espino said since then, further polling has shown a decline in the belief of justifiable political violence across all parties, but it’s still at about 20%. “When 20% of the population thinks political violence could be necessary, you don’t need a majority on board,” he said. “In fact, most social change - for better or for worse - usually starts on the fringes and margins of society. Sometimes you don’t need a majority, you just need a strongly committed minority.” He said one issue possibly contributing to American polarization is what the U.S. surgeon general called a “loneliness epidemic.” Espino said 60% of Americans have reported feeling deeply lonely in the past month, and added, “People that are lonely, people that feel socially isolated - they have lower overall levels of societal trust.” He said some people seek to solve issues of loneliness by finding communities, and oftentimes polarized political groups present an attractive “in-group” to belong to, at the expense of polarizing against the “out-group.” Espino asked what people can do to cure the loneliness epidemic, and said, “I don’t know. I don’t have an answer. I wish I did. But, because you can start addressing a problem, you need to know that a problem exists. “When we talk about democracy, there’s all of these things that deal with the functions of government and government policy. But I also want people to be aware there are all of these more nitty-gritty, societally ingrained issues that can have spillover effects to democracy and polarization and political violence,” Espino said. Smailes began his discussion with a few disclaimers - there is no one solution, not everyone will want to participate in the effort to make the world better, and he speaks from a position of privilege. He started by comparing the COVID-19 pandemic to another historical pandemic - the 1919 Spanish Influenza pandemic. During this time, both masking and lockdowns were common and controversial. Smailes added there were many people with similar responses to the Spanish Influenza as there were to COVID-19, including people who capitalized on the situation, denied the pandemic, and panicked in response. He said, as Espino had said, that people tend to act “more or less out of fear” when in situations that cause isolation and loneliness like the Spanish Influenza, and this was evident at the time. Smailes also emphasized the death toll caused by the Spanish Influenza pandemic, which, even though it lasted less time, killed more people globally and a higher proportion of people in the U.S. than COVID-19. He asked the audience to think about reactions to the outbreak of COVID-19, which included panic buying, often without regard for what others were going through. “We didn’t have much regard for anyone else. We really thought only in terms of what’s going to be best for me. And that feeling of being disconnected from everyone around us, that loneliness that, again, Espino is talking about very much fueled this reaction to COVID,” Smailes said. He said democracy and civil society requires some amount of trust and a “sense of connectedness” to the community. He added the COVID-19 pandemic made people feel like “there was no one or nothing out there that we could rely on,” and this feeling reveals a lot about contemporary society. Smailes connected this feeling to a speech Abraham Lincoln made in 1839, before his presidency, where he described a “civil chaos” that would eventually lead to the Civil War. Smailes said this is “exactly the same concern we have today about political violence.” He added Lincoln’s concern was that someone would take advantage of this fear to incite violence, and this perseveres today. Smailes said there is a persistent want for a singular political ideology that can bind people together and make them less likely to turn to political violence, and said Martin Luther King Jr. held beliefs which might be this “glue.” He said King believed there are three ways to identify if a law is unjust - if it’s immoral, if it applies to the minority but not the majority, or if it applies to a minority but that minority gets no representation in creating the law. Smailes said this is one ideology that may bind people together in a common belief to lower political polarization. He said people should try to reengage with the community to create a sense of connectedness, and recommended participating in local government. He added the people of the town in Ohio where he lives now have joined together to not only raise supplies for donation to places affected by Hurricane Helene, but some individuals even delivered the supplies to the South directly. “We create for ourselves, at times, this connection that we feel,” Smailes said. “The difficult part is sustaining that all the time. Making that a regular part of our lives. That’s the part that’s missing.” Martin said his presentation would try to explain the rise of “anti-democratic politics in the last several years.” He said the concerns about the state of democracy in the U.S. have existed since long before the 2024 election cycle, and these historical concerns may provide context for today’s political climate. Martin said today there are a lot of non-democratic acts performed by politicians across the political spectrum and supported by their bases, including “election interference, obstruction of justice, demeaning minorities, political violence, disrespect for the use of law, [and] the use of lies and propaganda.” He said these acts are common within the current political climate in the U.S. in general, but there have also been several changes within the last few years that point to problematic shifts in culture. Martin showed many statistics showing waning trust in the government, such as a poll that showed 64% of people in 1964 who believed the government wanted to benefit all people, versus only 29% in 2018 who believed the same. Another poll showed in 1964, 29% of people believed the government was run by “a few big interests looking for themselves,” and in 2018, 76% believed the same. One poll showed that in 2010, a majority of people began to believe that a third major political party was necessary to represent the interests of the people, and by 2014, this majority became more distinct. Martin said this might be because people believe the U.S. government has become oligarchical - meaning only a small number of people have power - which was found in a 2014 study. He showed research demonstrating that most change cannot happen without wealthy members of U.S. society endorsing the change, meaning that small fringe groups fighting for change may not be able to drive it. Martin said, “Clearly, there’s been a breakdown in democracy. And the way I define democracy is not just as a process including the ability to vote, but [whether] the outcomes serve the interests of the vast majority of people. If not, we’ve got a problem.” He said statistics show most people do not believe the government is serving their interests, meaning democracy is failing people. “This state of affairs isn’t natural or just the way it is,” he said. Martin showed examples of presidents - George Bush and Joseph Biden - admitting on some level that the voters they pander to are ultimately their rich voters. He said because campaigning for office generally costs so much money, the third parties generally desired by the population don’t tend to be viable, because they can’t raise enough money in the first place. “A potent case can be made that the recent decline in democracy is tightly connected to the kinds of problems I’ve been talking about,” Martin said. He added, “When people feel deeply alienated from the government - when they feel insecure and anxious in their everyday life and it becomes harder to get ahead or stay in place and they don’t see any truly viable political outlet for that frustration in mainstream politics - many of them are willing to back more authoritarian politicians who are willing to challenge the status quo by any means necessary.”