# data[].attributes.body
Politics has divided America into many sides, which has caused polarization in politics. Polarization is the big gap between Republicans and Democrats, which has gotten bigger and bigger over time. The two separate sides most of the time do not want to work together to fix this problem, and many Americans have different opinions on how to solve it. Judaism believes that to solve this problem, both sides must work together and listen to each other. Also, Judaism believes that both sides are equal, and both have the right to express their opinion. Judaism believes that if both sides compromise and listen without arguing with each other we can find a way to solve polarization.

# data[].attributes.body
It is a positive commandment to give tzedakah ...And there is a negative commandment in one who turns his eyes away, as it is said: “You shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand” (Devarim 15:7).
(Shulchan Arukh20, Yoreh De'ah 247:1)
Because of polarization, many people see the people on their other side of the political system as mean and bad people and do not want to help them. But, this text explains how you should not turn your eyes away from those in need unless you want to commit a negative commandment. So, you should not help others even if they are on the other side of the political spectrum than you, which is one of the causes of polarization.

# data[].attributes.body
Along came the Jews with a very different message: “The world can be fundamentally changed. Every system of oppression, no matter how powerful it appears to be, can be overthrown… We know it, because we did it ourselves.” (Rabbi Michael Lerner22, Jewish Renewal: A Path to Healing and Transformation, p.129)

The Jews believe that any government or system of oppression can be overthrown, so this system of polarization can be overthrown over time.

# data[].attributes.body
Even if we can get out of our echo chambers and only, you know - and we can hear more points of view, people will still tend to reject the view that does not fit with their pre-existing beliefs. So we've got to find ways to bring people together and tap into their shared humanity. That is, to give them experiences where they can begin to empathize again with the other person.
("Political Science Professor Warns Of Dangers Of Polarized Politics" April 5, 2017)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
subscribe to The NPR Politics Podcast podcast

As Senate Republicans and Democrats face off over the nomination of Neil Gorsuch, Jennifer McCoy, a political science professor warns of the dangers of polarized politics with NPR's Kelly McEvers.

KELLY MCEVERS, HOST:

As the Senate considers radically changing its rules to require only a majority to get a Supreme Court Justice approved, one professor says a move like that would only polarize U.S. politics more. Georgia State University Professor Jennifer McCoy researches polarized democracies like Venezuela, Turkey and Hungary. And this week in The Washington Post, she argues there are lessons the U.S. should learn from those countries. She's with us now from member station WABE in Atlanta. Professor McCoy, welcome to the show.

JENNIFER MCCOY: Thank you so much, Kelly.

MCEVERS: So to start with, what does it mean for a democracy to be polarized? I mean, what do you see in these governments in Turkey, Venezuela and Hungary?

MCCOY: Well, what we are seeing is when voters divide into opposing camps they come to view the other side not any longer as a political adversary, as in a healthy democracy, just one to compete against and occasionally to negotiate and compromise with, but instead as a threatening enemy to be vanquished. And that means that compromise is no longer possible. Negotiations and communications break down. And people begin to perceive and be afraid of the other side.

MCEVERS: How polarized is the American system as compared to these other places that you research?

MCCOY: What we do see in the United States is over the last 15 to 20 years, one is that the growing distance between peoples and between the political parties as they each become more homogeneous within themselves, the Democrats and Republicans, and further apart. But the second part of it that's very important is the growing antipathy. So that is this perception that the other side is actually threatening, that if they come to power, if they win the elections, that that is threatening to our way of life.

MCEVERS: So what - from what you've seen in these three countries, what's the result of polarization? What happens?

MCCOY: Well, there's three possible outcomes. One is simply paralyzing gridlock where the two camps can't negotiate and compromise and arrive at any decisions at all. A second is that you may see a veering back and forth between two sides so that one side is in power for a while and is imposing its decisions on the other side. And that creates a backlash, and they'll be removed. And then the other side gets in and they do the same thing. The third is that the leader can stay in power, can change rules such as election rules that will benefit them, and begin to isolate, divide and repress their opponents. And you can see a growing authoritarian trend in those cases.

MCEVERS: So how can democracies reverse this process? How can you depolarize a political system?

MCCOY: One way to do it is to change the things that allow one side to gain too much power or to make, you know, political fights like elections a winner-take-all game. So in the United States, that would have to do with redistricting and not allowing the political parties to control the redistricting decisions to benefit themselves and to benefit the incumbents. But there's also a strong effect at the individual level where when people are afraid that - if somebody's own self-concept or world view is threatened, they refuse to receive new information that may disconfirm that.

Even if we can get out of our echo chambers and only, you know - and we can hear more points of view, people will still tend to reject the view that does not fit with their pre-existing beliefs. So we've got to find ways to bring people together and tap into their shared humanity. That is, to give them experiences where they can begin to empathize again with the other person.

MCEVERS: That's Jennifer McCoy. She's a political science professor at Georgia State University in Atlanta. She talked to us from member station WABE. Thank you so much.

MCCOY: Thank you very much.

(SOUNDBITE OF NATURAL SELF SONG, "IN THE MORNING")

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio record.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Political Science Professor Warns Of Dangers Of Polarized Politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
subscribe to The NPR Politics Podcast podcast As Senate Republicans and Democrats face off over the nomination of Neil Gorsuch, Jennifer McCoy, a political science professor warns of the dangers of polarized politics with NPR's Kelly McEvers.

# data[].attributes.headline
All opinions are valid and have reasoning behind them

# data[].attributes.subject
All opinions are valid and have reasoning behind them

# data[].attributes.body
In short, we need to view those with whom we disagree as having honorable intentions and legitimate reasons for believing as they do. We may regard them as mistaken, but we should not think of them as evil.

("Appealing to Empathy to Overcome Polarization"

By Arnold Kling Jul 6 2020 The Library of Economics and Liberty)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When 66 million Democrats and 69 million Republicans lost their empathy toward each other, lack of civility, loathing and anger erupted, resulting in a partisan power struggle with no brakes or constraint that has been eroding the guardrails of our democracy.

-René H. Levy, Mending America's Political Divide: People Over Partisan Politics (page ix)

In Mending America's Political Divide, René H. Levy offers a neuroscientist's perspective on the phenomenon of political polarization. Our politics is stimulating our tribal instincts, which lead us to lose empathy with the other side. This lack of empathy has dangerous consequences.

Levy describes the deterioration in our political culture by asking rhetorical questions, including:

Americans are known for their civic spirit: what made them become so uncivil and hostile toward each other? (pages 17-18)

He sees people reverting to primitive psychological patterns.

Political tribalism erupted because it is based on our intuitive binary instinct that allows us to classify others as "us" or "them" in a fraction of a second. The second mind deception, political hatred, was triggered by a natural defense mechanism located in our inner brain, the seat of our emotions. Hatred emerges subconsciously whenever our primitive brain (including the amygdala) detects a potential threat. For partisans, a political threat is as real as a physical threat and it activates the primitive brain, resulting in some form of hatred. (page ix)

For Levy, the most harmful characteristic of tribal politics is lack of empathy. We lose sight of the humanity of our political opponents and instead treat them as an evil force.

Levy offers a vision for a healthier political culture.

* To have policy disagreements without allowing partisanship to become the cause of our disagreements

* To consider our political opponents worthy adversaries who are fit to rule our country

* To reject perceptions of threat and contempt, tribalism and hatred, as ways to discharge our civic duties or to obliterate the beliefs of others. (pages 40-41)

In short, we need to view those with whom we disagree as having honorable intentions and legitimate reasons for believing as they do. We may regard them as mistaken, but we should not think of them as evil. We need to lose the apocalyptic mindset that foresees dire consequences should we lose an election. Instead,

Constructive partisanship is politics with integrity. It is about partisans who believe in their party's platform but without disrespect, demonization, contempt, or hatred toward opposition partisans. (page 113)

Levy says that to do better we must adopt four behaviors. He calls these Impulse Control, Empathy Skills, Contradiction/Discordance, and Mutual Responsibility.

By impulse control he means a mindfulness that allows us to overcome the instinct to fear and hate political opponents.

The primitive brain takes policies of the opposition, sees them as an imminent reality as if they had already become law, and makes us feel that we must fight back right now. The wisdom approach on the other hand takes the time to untangle potential from actual impact, and derails the perception of threat. The perception of threat is transformed into the correct perception of a potential future challenge. (page 132)

Levy sees lack of empathy as a core flaw in tribal politics.

Without empathy, a partisan turns from victim to aggressor and becomes judgmental, inconsiderate, and callous. This partisan will react not just to the policies of the opposition but become intolerant and "allergic" to political opponents as individuals, to the point of screaming to the TV screen when they appear. (page 135)

In contrast, when we listen to others with empathy,

We make eye contact, we do not interrupt the speaker, do not counter-critique and do not judge. We try to figure out the emotional state and feelings of the speaker. We are open to the speaker's position and when needed ask follow-up questions to discover what is actually important to them. If possible, we also repeat or paraphrase the speaker's thoughts to show that we heard her/him and thus build a connection. (page 138)

By Contradiction/Discordance, Levy means that we must be ready to tolerate ambiguity. Some issues have valid considerations on both sides. He offers abortion as one example, where there are valid concerns both for the quality of life of the woman and the right to life of the fetus.

Levy's description of Mutual Responsibility differs from that of the other three behaviors in that it is a problem for one side but not the other. Whereas both left and right may be guilty of lack of impulse control, lack of empathy, or inability to tolerate ambiguity, the opposite of mutual responsibility is a form of rugged individualism that Levy sees in libertarianism. He makes it seems that Mutual Responsibility is automatically appreciated by the left, but the rest of us have to learn it.

This discussion would have been more balanced had Levy talked about how Mutual Responsibility is not easily understood in a large, complex society. In a simple, small-scale society, such as a family, the morality of actions is readily judged by using the intention heuristic, because there is usually a clear, direct connection between intentions and outcomes. But in a large, complex society, the unintended consequences of actions often differ from their intended consequences. As a result, the question of which policies and institutions best promote mutual responsibility is a contestable issue.

I see one other flaw in Mending America's Political Divide, which is that it does not adequately address the question of why polarization appears to be more severe now than in the past. Some hypotheses that I have offered include the way that social media changes the way that we experience political events and the way that our culture has sorted along political lines.

These quibbles aside, Mending America's Political Divide offers a sound diagnosis of our political ills. It offers a prescription that I wish more people would take to heart.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Appealing to Empathy to Overcome Polarization - Econlib

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When 66 million Democrats and 69 million Republicans lost their empathy toward each other, lack of civility, loathing and anger erupted, resulting in a partisan power struggle with no brakes or constraint that has been eroding the guardrails of our democracy. -René H. Levy, Mending America's Political Divide: People Over Partisan Politics1 (page ix) In ...

# data[].attributes.body
Why should you not hate the stranger? – asks the Torah. Because you once stood where he stands now.
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Mishpatim: Loving the Stranger  (2008)
People on the other sides of the spectrum in politics tend to hate each other, and not allowing each other to express their opinions, causing more polarization in politics. This text explains how one should not hate the stranger, because you once were in their shoes. If both sides were more allowing of the other ones to express their opinions, and if they did not hate each other, polarization would decrease dramatically.

# data[].attributes.headline
Act Towards Others as you Would Want to be Acted Towards

# data[].attributes.subject
Act Towards Others as you Would Want to be Acted Towards

# data[].attributes.body
Therefore, it says here, that you need to love him like yourself, and act toward him just as you would want. You should act towards him as you would want other people to act toward you if you were a foreigner.
(Shadal3 on Leviticus 19:34 - Love him as yourself)
This text describes how that we should treat others how we would want to be treated, as act towards others as if we were being acted towards. So, the seperate sides in politics should treat each other like they would want to be treated, and then polarization would be better than before.

# data[].attributes.body
This is what the Holy One said to Israel: My children, I have lacked for you nothing - what do I seek from you? I seek no more than that you love one another and honor one another and fear one another and that there should not be any sin, thievery, or harmful actions among you so that you do not come to invalidate the world.

(Eliyahu Rabbah11 26)
God explains to the Israeli people to love each other and to not commit any sin towards one another in The Torah. If everyone would have followed God's words, then both sides of polarization would not have been so divided as they are today.

# data[].attributes.body
you shall love him as yourself (Leviticus 19:33-34)

It might be really easy to argue with people who do not have the same opinion as you. But, the Torah explains how you should love the stranger as yourself, which means you should love everyone, even people with different opinions with you as yourself. It also explains how you should listen to others and allow them to express their opinions even if you do not agree with them. A big part of polarization is both sides not wanting to agree with each other and choosing not to listen to one another.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Polarization in Politics in America From 1994-2015

# data[].attributes.subject
The Polarization in Politics in America From 1994-2015

# data[].attributes.body
Over time polarization gets more and more bad. Just look at the drastic change between 1994 and 2015.