announcer: washington journal

continues. host: we return now to the topic of political polarization in america. our guest has spent a long time studying the issue at stanford university. up early for us, thanks so much for being here. before we get to the study you conducted on methods to reduce polarization, just put the situation in perspective for us. how divided would you say this country is right now? more divided than it has ever been since the civil war? caller: i would say that the u.s. is as divided as it has been at any point since the

civil war. as a political researcher and a sociologist, i tend to focus on the public opinion, which is one way to look at this. public opinion data on polarization and attitudes in the american general public is really concerning. it is not looking very good. for example, we see concerning levels of support for condoning violence. those levels are not high, but i would still describe them as concerning because you want to see that near zero or so. anti-semitic attitudes are pretty high as well. americans report being willing to tolerate antidemocratic moods from political leaders in their own party for partisan gains. and then finally, we seem steadily increasing partisan animosity between rival parties

in the u.s. for four or five decades now. so we have a half-century trend of increasing animosity between democrats and republicans. that is just the general public. elected representatives are more ideologically distant than they have been in a century, but we study the public the most and look at the trends. host: when you say antidemocratic attitudes, you are talking democratic with a small d, right? guest: exactly right. the way we and other political researchers have often studied it. how likely would you be to vote for a candidate from your party if that candidate reduced polling places in districts that disadvantaged them or prosecuted journalists for doing negative coverage of them and their party, or refused to acknowledge the results of an election? these are the things that we

think of as antidemocratic moves that politicians might do, and we are interested in how the general public feel about that. a critical check on democratic fact-finding is the risk of not being elected. if people are willing to go see you all you are doing undemocratic things, politicians for the most part will not do undemocratic things. but as long as you do have free and fair elections, it is important to hold politicians accountable and check democratic fact-finding. host: why is division so bad right now? what is different about today? guest: there is so much going on with a friend that is this big and has gone on for this long. i think the thing that really triggered the trend in emotional polarization, increasing dislike between democrats and republicans, i think the first

thing that happened was that congress or politicians in general, the political elite, polarized first in terms of how distinct they were in their attitudes and policy views. if you go back to the 50's, the 60's, even the 70's, you see kind of -- overlap in the distribution in the middle with some liberal republicans or moderate republicans who are scoring more liberal than the most conservative democrats, and now we see a total halloween out of the middle. and there is no overlap in the u.s. congress, democrats and republicans. politicians and party platforms, they have never been more different. they are totally distinct. when that is the case, the general public can sort more cleanly into being democrat or republican. it used to be there were people

with a bunch of liberal views who voted republican at a time and vice versa, conservative folks voting democrat. but now that would be very strange to do. you have to make clear which team you should be assigned to. and has led to a bunch of other trends, including demographics being more associated with party, race and ethnicity highly associated with party. gender highly associated with party. whether you live in a rural or urban area is more associated with party than it has ever been. it has kind of turbocharged that party identity, and those animosities that rural people have for urban people, now feels partisan animosity. a very long answer to your question, but we now have a situation with distinct party identities that are really different, people don't see i to

i and they increasingly dislike one another. host: your study tested solutions to reduce partisan polarization. what solutions did you test and what you find? guest: what we did to try to address this problem of increasing polarization and anti-democratic attitudes in the general public was to conduct will be called a mega study, which was an effort to gather a lot of ideas for what could reduce these views. we tested 25 ideas in a massive experiment with 32,000 american democrats and republicans, a representative sample of american partisan. the way that we got the ideas that we tested was pretty innovative. we decided it was a big problem, we've got a couple ideas for have to try to improve democratic attitudes and partisan animosity.

but of course, we don't have all the good ideas, not even close. so we sent out a call on social media to academics, practitioners and nonprofits, activists, working in advocacy groups and social movements. send in your best ideas and we will test them against one another to see what i the best ideas for improving these attitudes in the american mass public. and people sent in all sorts of stuff. it had to be something we could embed in an online survey experience. that is how probably most of the polling data that you see these days is generated, that is also how we do political experience like this. it had to be something you can experience in an online survey. so we got video, audio, chat box, all kinds of stuff.

we got 250 submissions from 400 researchers, 17 other countries. their response was really incredible. much bigger than we had hoped for. we found 25 ideas and tested them. some of the results were really interesting. one of the results, one overarching strategy that was effective in a few of the most effective interventions that really stuck out, it would probably be correcting inaccurate or exaggerated stereotypes of the views of rival partisans. so this strategy and the interventions that reflected the strategy kind of leverage something that is pretty well-known, which is that american democrats and republicans have some radical misperceptions of the other side's levels of toxic polarization and anti-democratic attitudes.

we are concerned about that for sure, but democrats and republicans both even overestimate the concerning levels that we observe. in one study we found that american democrats and republicans overestimate the levels of support for political violence on the other side, something like 300%-400%. a radical overestimate. and if you correct that, you tell them actually, republicans in general report this level of support for political violence, the people you are correcting will themselves lower their own support for political violence. this suggests that a lot of what we're seeing here is people mirroring the attitudes that they believe the other side has. they say i don't want to bring a knife to a gunfight here. if these folks urban to sacrifice, i need to as well. these people are willing to support civil violence, i will as well.

but it turns out we have these gross misrepresentations of the other side and correcting that can bring down the partisan conflict we're seeing in the general public. host: a concrete example of a solution that needs tested, simply play a video from the candidate for the utah governor back in 2020. and to test the attitudes before and after that video. here is that campaign advertisement. >> i am your republican candidate for utah governor. and i'm chris peterson. >> we are currently in the final days of campaigning against each other. but our common values transcend our political differences and the strength of our nation rest on our ability to see that. we are both equally dedicated to the american values of democracy, liberty and justice for all people. we just have different opinions on how to achieve those ideals.

but today, we are setting aside those differences to deliver a message that is critical for the health of our nation. so whether you vote by mail or in person, we will fully support the result of the upcoming election regardless of outcome. although we sit on different sides of the aisle, we are both committed to american's ability and a peaceful transition of power. and we hope utah will be an example to the nation because that is what our country is built on. please, stand with us on behalf of our great state and nation. we approve this message. host: again, that campaign advertisement from 2020. guest: this was one of the more effective interventions that we tested. when people saw this video, even though it is about a gubernatorial race that was over a year and a half before they saw it and went public in a stately were not living in for a vast majority of the participants, maybe they had never even heard of these guys,

nonetheless, people reported less anger and animosity toward the rival partisans, whether they were democrat or republican, and also greater support for democratic principles. less willingness to sacrifice democratic principles for partisan gain. in other words, willing to vote against an in-party candidate who broke democratic rules. and what is with the cool about this is it is totally scalable. you can imagine a larger movement, perhaps funded by campaign donors from both sides of the aisle, which is candidates in elections like our presidential election to film ads like this and putting them on tv. you can imagine social media platforms like meta or facebook to promote these by contributing bipartisan or even nonpartisan ad spots, or by commissioning

the content in the first place directly on their site. this is the kind of thing that helps to stabilize our democracy by reminding people there are common democratic rules that both sides should be agreeing to, and at some level in an election you are not just competing, you'll also plot operating. -- you are also cooperating. you are cooperating on basic rules, that elections are binding in legitimate unless evidence shows otherwise. having that service turns out to be important. host: plenty of calls. rob willer with us until the bottom of the hour. this is josh out of illinois. you are up first. caller: good morning. can you hear me ok? good morning.

i can tell you exactly why there is such divide in the country. it startled with -- it started with donald trump every day saying the media was fake news at the media is the enemy of the state and all of the other things he would say. all of his constituents believe everything they read or anything anybody says is a lie and he tells the truth, which is basically the opposite. and then on top of it the main thing is fox news. when you hear the republicans call in, they are all angry. you can tell they watch fox news because we have tucker carlsen, sean hannity, jesse waters, they come home from work and see these people yelling on the screen save the democrats are

trying to destroy our country and promoting a bunch of lies. that is all i have to say. i did not really have a question . host: we will take them up. rob willer on former president trump and the media environment right now? guest: thanks, josh. i agree that donald trump is in terms of influence and in terms of his behavior as the leading undemocratic politician in the u.s. today. it is interesting to think of donald trump as both cause and effect. there is no question donald trump has stoked unfounded skepticism about the 2020 election and that has been damaging to american elections, americans faith in elections which is lower than it has ever been, and a lot of that is

misinformation that donald trump has propagated. it is also worthwhile to think of donald trump as an effect. there were forces of polarization that made it possible for donald trump to win the presidency. for a lot of republicans in 2016 because of the high levels of polarization, they did not view voting for a democrat or staying home and indirectly helping the democrat win the presidency as an option. in interviews on donald trump voters from 2016 show a lot of people did not like the way he tweeted or did not like a lot of his behavior and personal life or how domineering he could be personally, but they could say i cannot vote for hillary clinton because her views are in a completely different place from my own. or i hate her or i hate the democrats. polarization can play a real

role in driving the election of undemocratic leaders as partisans hold their noses and say there is stuff about this candidate i do not like but i will still vote for him or her because i do not have a choice. it does not make any sense for me to defect to the other party. i might agree with josh, a lot of that is the product of a skewed information environment, but it is also the reality of the situation and that polarization is partly how we got donald trump as a political leader. host: kevin on twitter wants you to talk about joe biden, saying address these remarks of joe biden in which he said "the maga crowd is the most extreme political organization that has existed in american history." guest: a really good question. joe biden started off his presidency trying to represent

everybody using a lot of anti-polarization rhetoric, rhetoric around unity, and we notice he has tried to more recently label a faction within the republican party as the maga faction, that is a terminology that has been going around over the last few months. it reflects a specific political strategy to try to marginalize a purportedly anti-democratic faction within the party. host: we encourage coffee on the washington journal. go ahead. guest: thanks for your support. it is a bit of a strategic move. we still want to be welcoming to moderate republicans who might want to vote democrat or still have faith in elections or do not support the capitol riot as a legitimate act of protest and so on, trying to keep them in

the tent politically and marginalize what they are calling the maga faction that has the increasing skepticism around elections or seems to be getting more extreme and radicalized as the months tick by. it is a political strategy and it is definitely different than the initial rhetoric of the biden presidency. host: to chicago, this is carl, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to pose a question. when you do your surveys is it possible you can interview republicans and ask them if they support getting money from the

stimulus. did they give money back in 2008 when obama was in. they always complain, but they take money. then they say the democrats are horrible when the democratic party tries to look out for all of the people, whether republicans, or they look out for people in their district. host: i will let you take that up. guest: in our research we did study people's political attitudes to see if the sorts of interventions we were testing change them at all, and interestingly for the most part these interventions which were targeting people's democratic

principles and animosity towards political rivals, it did not change people's actual attitudes on issues. there is one exception i found interesting. an intervention that tried to increase people's concerns about the threat of democratic collapse, this was maybe the second most effective intervention we tested for improving americans democratic attitudes, and what it did was it showed video footage of scenes of societal unrest and rioting and police repression in the streets of countries that had just been enduring democratic collapse. it true a connection to the u.s. saying that could happen here, and used imagery from the capitol riot's in january 2021. what we found is this intervention tended to increase democrats and republican

commitments to democratic principles and decrease their animosity towards rivals. it also increased how it made participants in the studies attitudes in general more liberal, including on economic issues like the size and generosity of welfare programs. this is very interesting because it suggests when you attach more stakes to the threat of democratic collapse and the risks associated with democratic backsliding that democrats and many republicans turned towards the left, they turned towards democratic principles but also away from the republican party and a little bit more towards liberal positions on a number of political issues. host: the line for republicans. keith in florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i have been calling and talking

since brian lamb and steve were the only two hosts on your show. my 60th birthday was january 6. i am beginning to not like my birthday anymore. i've heard more in my life in the last year and half that i ever in my whole life. the government and the media come in my opinion, is the cause of this what i've have seen in my lifetime. the government have been buying votes on both sides, making promises they cannot keep. they cannot keep the promises of medicare, social security, veterans come already. they are going bankrupt and we are starting new programs. it divided the public into little groups. i label myself as an american that happens to believe in god and his son and i am not hyphenated because i am adopted

and i do not know so i can pick on everybody. i do not know what is in my dna. i think we are running our country into the ground dividing ourselves. i am a maga, i went to november 14 when we had a chance to do something legally. i knew from bush gore that the supreme court said after december 12 there was no legal means to change the vote. from the 14th the electors and sue providers -- and supervisors -- from december 14 it was ceremonial. what they did was wrong. i think the fbi had their hand into the organizations, the oath keepers and the proud boys. i hung around by harry's pub. i've been marching there since the tea party.

the country is divided so much by the government. both sides are not fact-based reporting. there are emotional media for cooked bacon getting people mad. that is all i have to say. host: you have been watching us a long time. what solution would you propose? caller: i would go back to the beginning where you did not label republicans or democrats or anything, it was open lines. host: keith in florida. guest: thanks, keith. he brings up a lot of interesting threads that one can pull on. when he brings up is this idea the media is stoking partisan division, which i think there is good research and good common sense to support this idea. with the decline of the three networks as the primary outlets

for news and the emergence of partisan media sources that play a much bigger role in people's information consumption and also the rise of social media platforms that people can purposely or inadvertently curates their own information environment, we find more that americans can select into or find themselves in different information environments where they are hearing information that is consistent with their ideology and confirms their preconceptions and they can probably stop watching some news that is partisan or ideologically extreme. it is a big problem that helps to create the situation where we cannot agree on basic facts. one of the interventions that was submitted to the challenge

by a team headed by christopher bryant. they try to leverage this as a unifying force. they can understand that part of the partisan animosity and rank or you feel is a product of media stoking those animosities, and it had excerpts from a book by matt taibi who talked about how editors would say explicitly the partisan anchor stoking content is good and people click on it. this does really well. they would produce more of it because it got clicks. you could see it is not just the emergence of partisans in ideological media outlets that is popular, it is also that those outlets have become more ideological and clearly plays a role.

telling democrats and republicans there is a role in the media and there benefited from stoking your anger at your political rivals in the u.s., this increased dashboard decreased animosity towards rival partisans and people were thinking i should not play into this dynamic that is bigger than me, i should try to defect from this dynamic and not be so angry at my rivals. it also had a small effect on improving people's willingness to support undemocratic candidates. people reflected i need to not play into this dynamic and continue to vote for candidates for my party no matter what they do. that would be a part of this polarization that is being partly driven by media pursuing profits. whether this intervention is exactly the way we would understand this dynamic as

analysts,