

Transcending Tribal Politics

How We Begin to Heal America

R. Wayne Morgan

For Love of Country

Dedicated to the True Patriots Who Value America above Self-Interest

I love The United States of America.

Its opportunity allowed my father to rise from a dirt floor shack during the Great Depression to a three bedroom home in suburbia after World War II.

Its prosperity allowed my mother to be a homemaker and caregiver with the time to take me to Cub Scouts, Little League, and swim lessons.

Its citizen taxpayers allowed me to attend good schools and develop my jump shot at a community recreation center.

Its sanitation and health services allowed me to grow up free of debilitating disease.

Its soldiers' sacrifice allowed me to live free of nazism, fascism, and communism.

Its vigilant police officers allowed me to be raised without fear of crime and violence.

Its precious freedom allowed me to choose my fulfilling path in life as an educator.

Thank You America. I owe you a debt I can never repay. The best I can offer is to stay informed, vote, and contribute in any way I can to your continued success.

Smashwords Edition

Ralph Wayne Morgan Publisher

Copyright © 2020 by R. Wayne Morgan

ISBN: 978–0–9845048–9–3
Prologue

Dear friends and fellow citizens,

Tribalism is a part of human nature because it supported our ancient ancestors' survival. It manifests when we identify with a particular group and then defend our group against those we consider outsiders. This tendency is primal and unconscious. It continues to contribute to some of the most destructive of human traits such as racism, xenophobia, religious intolerance, and other forms of bigotry.

Today, the word Tribalism has increasingly been used to describe the "us versus them" mentality that dominates our political culture. We don't just disagree about policy anymore. We increasingly distrust and dislike members of the other tribe—to the point where neighbors, friends, and even families are afraid to talk with each other about politics. Sociologists call this animosity affective polarization. It is not healthy for our country. I am writing these essays because I fear that modern communication technologies are promoting political tribalism to the breaking point of our democracy.

Transcending means to rise above. Transcending Tribal Politics explores how human nature fuels our political divide—and how we may consciously work to overcome these divisions. The goal is not to make liberals more conservative or conservatives more liberal. The goal is to help conservatives and liberals better understand one another and communicate in ways that are not so destructive.

This book is only an introduction to some of the latest research on how human nature affects our political choices. I have borrowed ideas from many knowledgeable and insightful people, referencing them in the text and cited works. Type any author, title, or concept mentioned in these essays into a search engine and find a wealth of information that will allow you to deepen your awareness.

Through this writing, I hope to broaden perspectives and promote understanding. I believe in the power of knowledge to promote civility in our politics. The future of the United States may depend on it.

If you find the following to be worthwhile, please share with family and friends.

Wayne

Contents Summary

Introduction

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

The Problem

Not everyone shares my values. (What is wrong with them?)

An Abbreviated History of American Politics

Our two-party system has deep roots, but has recently undergone major shifts.

Personality and Politics: The Value Divide

How differences in the strength of six values predispose us to lean left or right.

Measureable Differences between Conservatives and Liberals

Brain scans and other evidence shows political preference has a biological basis.

The Case for Nurture

Evidence shows our political preferences are influenced by our childhood experiences, particularly the parenting style in our family of origin.

The Case for Nature

Evidence shows our political preferences are influenced by our genetic inheritance.

Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias are mechanisms that help relieve the psychological stress of information that contradicts our world view.

Why the Broadcast Media Took Sides

Changes to the Communications Act of 1934 and the Fairness Doctrine of 1949 opened the door to biased reporting by broadcast media.

False Information and Conspiracy Theories

The mistrust of science and the embracing of misinformation is a significant roadblock to healing between conservatives and liberals.

The Depreciation of Science

Good science supports good policy choices, but is often rejected when it produces cognitive dissonance in those with ideological or economic agendas.

Environmental Protections

Fossil fuel interests have systematically worked to create doubt on climate change long after the science has become clear.

Immigration Myths

Politicians demonize recent immigrants to energize their political base.

The Gun Safety Debate

There is no simple solution to gun violence in America.

The Case for Pessimism

As we look at the chances of healing our nation, there are reasons for pessimism.

The Case for Optimism

There are reasons to believe our divided nation can be healed.

How Do We Heal

Our hope must lie in the Awakening Majority of citizens who realize that excessive partisanship is harmful to America.

Practical Steps

  * Recognize the desires of both sides as expressions of a value matrix.

  * Support candidates who prioritize the need for national healing.

  * Don't add to the political wars by continuing your own skirmishes!

  * Keep political discourse respectful even when disagreeing.

  * Support candidates willing to compromise.

  * Do not reward dividers with listenership, viewership, or clicks.

  * Do not forward inaccurate or hateful messages.

# Contents (Click for Direct Access)

The Problem

An Abbreviated History of American Politics

Personality and Politics: The Value Divide

The Case for Nurture

The Case for Nature

Cognitive Dissonance

Why the Broadcast Media Took Sides

False Information and Conspiracy Theories

The Depreciation of Science

Environmental Protections

Immigration Myths

The Gun Safety Debate

The Case for Pessimism

The Case for Optimism

How Do We Heal?

Practical Steps

Appendix: Additional Resources

Works Cited

Also by R. Wayne Morgan

Introduction

"If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem."

Above is a familiar phrase used to promote many causes, particularly various forms of political and environmental activism. Seemingly a positive exhortation worthy of a bumper sticker, it is actually a paraphrase of a quote attributed to Eldridge Cleaver in a 1968 speech. He was advocating that African Americans must be willing to take up arms against their white oppressors. It became a slogan of the Black Panther Party well into the 1970s. Ironically, the phrase was first coined by Charlie Rosner, a graphic designer and copywriter. He was tasked with making posters to promote Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), an anti-poverty program begun as one of President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society initiatives in 1967. (In another irony, before he died in 1998, Eldridge Cleaver became a conservative Republican and a Mormon.)

Like many Americans, I have been dismayed to witness the effects of tribal politics on my country. We seem to have passed the point of healthy debate. We don't want to talk with those who embrace political philosophies that differ from our own. Our partisan discourse is angry. We view the "others" with emotions ranging from suspicion to contempt to hatred. Citizens have been beaten and run over by cars for their political views. Politicians have been harassed in public places with their families looking on. Businesses have posted signs indicating they only serve those who agree with the owners' politics. For the first time in my life, I am concerned for the health of our democracy and the future of our nation.

All people who love the American Ideal must take their own steps to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. My purpose in writing this book is to contribute to the goal of a more civil and united country.

#  The Problem

My wife and I were driving over a narrow and winding portion of Highway 17 on our way home from a weekend on the Santa Cruz coast. I kept my plug-in hybrid in the right lane, even though I was driving at the 55 MPH speed limit. Without warning, a pickup truck passed us in the left lane and pulled over dangerously close in front of us. Before I could even apply my brakes, the truck belched a huge cloud of thick black smoke out of its dual exhaust pipes. For a few terrifying seconds, I could not see anything. It was just luck that kept me on the road and prevented a disastrous crash.

This near tragedy was no accident. The diesel engine of the truck had been modified to belch smoke on purpose—at the driver's command. Owners are willing to spend hundreds, even thousands of dollars to modify engines and disable emission systems for the sole purpose of making a political statement. They believe they are taking a stand against "rampant environmentalism." They see their actions as a celebration of conservative values, a shameless demonstration of American freedom. They display bumper stickers that say things like "Prius Repellant." *

The phenomenon of "coal rolling," as it has come to be called, has been growing in popularity—mostly among young working-class white males. On social media, they document their attacks on pedestrians, bicyclists, and electric vehicle drivers. During one confrontation, a coal roller was quoted as saying: "Why don't you go live in Sweden and get the heck out of our country. I will continue to roll coal anytime I feel like it and fog your stupid eco-cars."

Another right wing reaction to environmentalism is called "ICEing" (ICE stands for Internal Combustion Engine). In this case, a group of extremists will use their pickup trucks to block entry to Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. In some instances, the protesters have chanted clever (?) slogans like "F### Tesla!"

In the moments after we were attacked on that curving highway, I hated that guy. He had senselessly put my wife and me in danger. In what he considered to be an expression of freedom, he had taken away our freedom to drive in safety. In my anger, I would have happily shot out his tires—or worse. I had a new understanding of the term "road rage."

I also hated the ideology that led him to modify his truck in the first place. Why couldn't he understand that "environmentalism" was a good thing—necessary to protect the beauty of nature and the future of our planet? What was wrong with him?

If I had been able to talk with him before I shot him (I would only have wounded him—road rage tempered by my compassion), I think I know what he might have said. Just like I value environmental responsibility—to maintain clean air and a thriving natural world, he values his personal freedom—to drive with all the diesel- guzzling horsepower he wants without regulation. He doesn't give a bird poop about wildlife. I don't give a frack about trucks with wasteful energy consumption. We belong to different tribes.

As I reflected on this incident, I became curious. How did America become so polarized? How could this guy and I be so dissimilar? How could our differences in values and beliefs become so intense that they would lead to efforts to extract revenge?

In the following essays, I will share some of the fruits of my research as I explored the answers to these troubling questions. As you might guess, I confirmed that people are different. Duh! The interesting part, of course, is why we become so different. It turns out that human nature supports political tribalism—even though it is ultimately not in our self-interest.

I am under no illusion that with some skillful dialogue I could convince my coal roller to "see the light." His extreme views may be calcified beyond modification. The hope has to be that some critical mass of awakened citizens will be able to grow in understanding and acceptance to lower the temperature—and avoid a national meltdown.

************

* When I showed a draft of this essay to a friend of mine who leans right, he felt insulted. He said that the actions of the idiot who blew black smoke do not represent the attitude and behavior of most conservatives. I certainly agree. I am not attempting to portray this coal roller as typical. Most conservatives—like most liberals—are thoughtful and civil, not extreme and obnoxious. Since this book is about healing our politics, I will attempt to be as even handed and respectful as possible to both ends of the political spectrum. Despite my best efforts, I know my human nature will cause me to fall short in this attempt.

#  An Abbreviated History of American Politics

In the 1770s, the American Colonies embarked on what has been called "a grand experiment" in democracy. Although a few other democratic governments developed and collapsed throughout history, our institutions are often traced back to ancient Greek roots. In Athens, for example, citizens (free men) were required under penalty of fine to take an active part in government. Yet, our Founding Fathers did not trust the fate of the new nation in the hands of average citizens. Rather, they preferred "a natural aristocracy" more along the lines of the Roman Republic model where the patrician class controlled the government. Only landed gentry—white males with wealth—would be allowed a place in Congress. It is important to note that as recently as 1900, not a single democracy in the world had universal suffrage. A century later, 123 of 192 nations are considered true democracies with voting rights for all citizens—including women.

Some of the architects of our Constitution were concerned about the development of political parties. George Washington, in his Farewell Address of 1796, conceded that the development of political parties should be expected, but was potentially harmful to the young democracy.

This spirit [tendency toward political parties], unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

Thomas Jefferson shared Washington's concern saying,

If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.

Nevertheless, political parties developed quickly in the country as likeminded individuals took sides on the pressing issues of the day.

The first issue that citizens of fledgling America rallied around was the role of government itself. One group, the Federalist Party, was led by Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. Their vision of the country was one of a thriving commercial republic patterned after European nations. They believed that a strong central government was essential for the economic development of the United States. Wealthy citizens tended to be Federalists.

The Democratic-Republican Party (Anti-Federalists) believed in states' rights and a weak central government. Championed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, this party attracted farmers and tradesmen who imagined America as a quiet agrarian republic. George Washington endeavored to stay above politics, but our second President John Adams was a Federalist. In 1800, Jefferson was elected our third President as a representative of the Democratic-Republican Party.

In 1828, Andrew Jackson, a Democratic-Republican from Tennessee, was elected president. He changed the party name to just "Democrat." His base of support was mostly in Southern and inland states. Opponents of Jackson formed the Whig party, also known as "National Republicans."

The question of federal rights verses states' rights simmered for decades before coming to a boil in the Civil War of 1861-1865. The real dispute, of course, was over slavery. The agrarian economy of the Southern states depended on it, while the industrial North increasingly felt it was morally abhorrent. Determining the fate of slavery in the newly minted Western states pushed the matter to the top of the political agenda.

By 1854, the issues of slavery and states' rights split the Democratic Party into Northern and Southern branches. Under the same pressures, the National Republican Party split into several factions. A new Republican Party was formed from a coalition of Northern abolitionists and "Free Soil" proponents who opposed expansion of slavery into the Western states. The strong anti-slavery feelings of the Republicans pushed Abraham Lincoln into the presidency in 1861. In a four party election, he received only 39.8% of the popular vote. Southern states then seceded from the union. Thus was poured the foundation of our present two party political dominance—Democrat and Republican.

Over the course of American history, other issues have prompted the rise of political parties. For example, the Prohibition Party was founded in 1869 as a grass roots movement of Christians and other temperance supporters. It was the first political party to accept women as members. In 1919, this party's influence culminated in the passage of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution outlawing the production and sale of alcohol. Not surprisingly, they also supported women's right to vote, producing the 19th Amendment in 1920. The party's influence declined rapidly after the repeal of prohibition by the 21st Amendment in 1933.

At any one time, dozens of minor parties dot the political landscape, hoping to attract followers to support their policy concerns. Occasionally, third party candidates have even influenced the outcome of national elections. But at this point, in the early decades of the 21st century, Republicans and Democrats hold almost all political offices at every level of government. Interestingly, however, the two major parties have continued to evolve, sometimes in surprising ways.

Following the Civil War, Democrats remained in control of the South, presiding over Reconstruction, voter suppression, and Jim Crow laws that legalized racial segregation. At the national level, however, Democrats were substantially weakened. This allowed Republicans to become the dominant party for many years, supporting business interests and the economic growth of the nation. Political supremacy would only switch as a result of The Great Depression. Since Herbert Hoover and the Republicans were in power when the economy collapsed, the Democrats dominated the elections of 1932, placing Franklin D. Roosevelt in the White House.

The Democrats expanded the role of the Federal Government in people's lives with the passage of economic relief measures, Social Security, and laws that supported workers and unions. Republicans fought against the growth in federal power and what they considered to be a move toward a welfare state. These differences continue to define the priorities of each party to the present day.

Since Roosevelt's New Deal, Democrats have had strong support among the poor, union members, minorities, and immigrants. More recently, college educated suburbanites have also been attracted to the party by liberal social platforms on topics such as race relations and women's rights. The overriding Democratic philosophy is that government has a role to play in promoting economic fairness and social justice.

The Republicans have taken more conservative stances, advocating for smaller government, traditional social values, and free market economics. Their overriding philosophy is that guarding personal freedom against government encroachment is the surest way to promote economic justice and individual liberty.

Even though Republicans were able to elect the popular World War II hero Dwight D. Eisenhower to the Presidency in 1952, sheer numbers continued to give the political edge to Democrats. Then a major reshuffling of loyalties occurred in the 1960's.

Under the leadership of Democratic President Lyndon Johnson, Congress passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968. This spurred a major transition in the parties as Republicans began appealing to white voters in Southern states opposed to integration, affirmative action, and the expansion of Federal power. Southern states were converted from a reliable Democratic stronghold into a dependable Republican block.

At the end of the 1970s, a long lasting period of economic instability was blamed on the Democrats and President Jimmy Carter. The Republicans took advantage of a national conservative surge to build a coalition of evangelical Christians, blue collar workers, rural conservatives, and business leaders to elect Ronald Reagan to the White House in 1980.

Historically, conservatism was divided into two aspects—fiscal and social. Fiscal conservatives favored small government, allowing for a laissez-faire economy, low taxes, free enterprise, and limited regulation. Business owners often found a natural fit in conservative economic philosophy. Social conservatives advocated for traditional social values they felt were threatened by secularism. They supported school prayer and opposed abortion, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, and same sex marriage.

The views of modern liberalism have generally come to be just the opposite. While not directly advocating for big government, liberals believe government should be active in supporting social and economic change. Liberals believe government should remain separate from religious institutions and doctrine, but should protect the human rights of individuals. Economically, liberals believe individuals need to be shielded from the power of large corporations and thus have traditionally supported workers' rights, collective bargaining, and corporate regulation.

Prior to the realignment of the 1960's, both parties had conservative, moderate, and liberal factions. This made compromise across party lines possible for major legislative accomplishments as conservatives or liberals came together across party lines to support a particular issue. After the realignment, "Democrat" became synonymous with liberal and "Republican" became synonymous with conservative—and bipartisan legislative cooperation became increasingly rare.

At the French Assembly of 1789, delegates in favor of preserving the current order sat on the right side of the chamber, while those who favored change sat on the left. The terms right and left have stood for conservatism and liberalism to this day.

Since the two parties have become ideologically "pure," it is now common to use the terms "conservative," "Republican," "red," and "right" interchangeably. Similarly, the terms "liberal," "Democrat," "blue" and "left" all describe the same political leaning. (Although the term "progressive" is often used today as a synonym for "liberal," it has a more historic connotation as aggressively socialistic so I will refrain from using it in these essays.)

Some observers contend that the political divide was exacerbated in 1995 when Newt Gingrich, the new Speaker of the House of Representatives, led the adoption of a three day work week for Congress. This was done in part to allow members more time for fundraising. He encouraged a large group of incoming Republicans to leave their families in their home district rather than move them to Washington.

Prior to this, families would often attend the same social events and cross party friendships would develop. Now the Representatives often fly to Washington on Monday, battle the perceived enemy for three days and fly home Thursday night. Consequently, there are fewer personal connections between members to help foster trust and compromise.

Today's tribal politics have reinforced the shifts in traditional political alignments. National demographic trends of increasing minority and immigrant populations have expanded the historic base of the Democratic Party. In response, Republicans have effectively used electronic media to redefine themselves from the perceived party of the wealthy to a more populist image. They have emphasized social issues popular with evangelical Christians and appeal to citizens who feel threatened by changing demographics. As a result of this rebranding, more working class whites now identify as Republican. The two parties have remained competitive and political control has alternated between them over the last half century. During this time, the gap between the parties has widened with Republicans moving more to the right and Democrats moving more to the left.

In many voters' minds, politics has become a battlefield between two contrasting visions of America. Some Republicans are nostalgic for a white Christian America reflective of our early cultural history, while many Democrats are more likely to see America as a multiracial, multiethnic, more secular society.

In the past, political analysts often assumed party choice was the result of economic self-interest, but the link between social class and ideology has largely been broken. Today, rich corporate executives are mostly on the right, while tech billionaires are mostly on the left. Rural poor vote to the right, while urban poor vote to the left. Large cities on the coasts have become Democratic strongholds, while small towns in the Midwest are reliably Republican. A county with a Whole Foods store has an 89% chance of voting Democratic. If the county has a Cracker Barrel restaurant, it has a 62% chance of voting Republican.

Analyzing the forces that shape modern voting patterns is complicated. Recently, however, biologists and social scientists have made discoveries which increase our understanding of political party preference.

#  Personality and Politics: The Value Divide

During foul weather, I often go to the gym for my aerobic workouts. On the walls are several prominent signs which exhort "Please clean equipment after use." Antibiotic wipes are provided. While amassing minutes on the treadmill, elliptical machine, or stationary bike, I have observed an interesting phenomenon. People seem to respond to the signs in one of two ways:

Some are quite conscientious about cleaning a machine after they complete their use. I assume they think like me: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I trust that the last person to use the equipment cleaned it before my use and I will pass the favor forward. Other people wipe down the equipment before they use it—and sometimes fail to do so afterward. My interpretation is that these folks are less trusting, saying in effect "In this world, it is everyone for themselves. I am going to take care of number one."

Such anecdotal observations started me speculating about the relationship between personality traits and political preference. Do trusting and untrusting individuals gravitate to different political parties? Is politics a matter of optimists versus pessimists or the hopeful versus the fearful? Of course, it is not that simple. Liberals might think of themselves as optimistic, while conservatives might label them as naive. Conservatives might think of themselves as realistic, while liberals might label them as untrusting. So let's hold off on labeling anyone. Let's see what scientific observations reveal.

A few years ago I came across a book that began to answer my questions about the intersection of personality and political differences. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion was written by Jonathan Haidt, a New York University Professor who studies moral psychology. (Check out his excellent TED Talk titled The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives.)

You might reasonably ask "What does morality have to do with politics?" Dr. Haidt and other researchers have concluded that the foundation of our political divide is our value divide. As our minds mature through childhood, we develop a moral matrix—a framework by which we judge what is right and what is wrong.

Once our moral matrix is developed, we tend to believe ours are the only right values. We become righteous. It is then difficult to consider the possibility that other points of view have any validity. In fact, it is much easier to label our political foes as stupid, selfish, or suffering from some other defect than to entertain the possibility that we might be wrong.

Dr. Haidt and his colleagues have identified six "pillars" upon which our moral matrix is built. Research has shown that liberals and conservatives consistently score differently in the strength of these values. In brief summary, here are the values that form the foundation of our moral matrix—the underpinnings of our world view:

Care – Our level on this value scale measures the strength of our desire to protect the vulnerable and help those in need. Liberals usually have a high care score—often being labeled "bleeding heart liberals" because of their empathy for others and their revulsion at violence and suffering. Note that conservatives also score high on caring, but develop different beliefs because of their strength in other values such as authority.

Liberty – Strength in this value brings people together to fight bullies and tyrants that suppress individual freedom. Liberals expect government to defend the weak against oppression by the strong. Conservatives with a high liberty value see the government as limiting their freedom and resent government interference in their lives.

Fairness – Liberals are motivated by this value to seek equity and reciprocity. Combined with the care value, it is the foundation of many Democratic economic and social policies. Conservatives may also be strong in this value, but are more likely to expect proportionality rather than equity. In other words, they believe we are all not automatically alike, but rather have to earn our position in life. For them, fairness is not about sharing resources equally, but getting what you deserve.

Loyalty – This is the value of standing with one's group. Conservatives tend to limit their loyalty to more immediate groups—family, church, and "people like me." Liberals are likely to expand their sense of loyalty to a more global scale that includes people of other nations, ethnic groups, and races.

Authority – This value supports social traditions and submission to legitimate authority. The world view of conservatives is particularly supported by strength in this value. They respect the hierarchies that naturally develop in human society. Liberals are more likely to reject tradition in favor of trying something new. They also tend to reject authority when it conflicts with values like care and fairness.

Sanctity – Sometimes labeled "Purity", this is abhorrence for things that evoke disgust. It is a universal value supported by evolution to keep us safe from dangerous animals or germs. Research has shown that this value is found at stronger levels in conservatives than liberals. Politicians of both stripes will sometimes use words of disgust to evoke this value, labeling opponents as "corrupt," "slimy," or "dirty."

Differences in moral matrix values reliably separate membership in political tribes. Conservatives typically score high on all six of the value scales while liberals score highest on the first three (Care, Fairness, and Liberty). Dr. Haidt concludes that these differences in fundamental values produce the differences we observe in the worldview of those on the political right and left.

If you have a heightened awareness of potential threats, avoid the unfamiliar, are comfortable following instructions, and like things simple, clear and decisive—you are most likely conservative in your political thinking. If, on the other hand, you seek out new information and experiences even if they present some risk, prefer to be creative rather than follow instructions, and are comfortable with complexity—you are most likely liberal in your political thinking. Let me quickly point out that these only represent probabilities, not certainties. The intersection between personality and politics is multifactorial and exceptions and outliers are common. Nevertheless, understanding the differences in values between conservatives and liberals may provide insight into the steps necessary to civilize our tribal politics.

Characteristics of Conservatives:

The strength of conservatives is the possession of a moral matrix that allows them to detect threats that liberals often do not perceive. This threat sensitivity helps preserve stability and social cohesion by honoring traditions and supporting institutions of authority. This in turn supports the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that strengthen social ties.

Conservatives are watchdogs, alerting society to dangers that need to be confronted to preserve the accumulated good in the face of internal or external threats. Conservatives ferociously defend the institutions and traditions they believe protect their most sacred value—the family.

A weakness of conservatives is their general belief that people are often untrustworthy and the world is dangerous. "There is always someone out there ready to steal your lunch." This caution may slow the progress of new ideas (not always a bad thing). In addition, conservatives may sometimes fail to notice certain classes of victims, siding with large corporations rather than consumers for example.

The conservative political philosophy emphasizes the belief in the self-reliance of the individual and the advocacy for limited government involvement in the lives of citizens. They support free-market capitalism as the foundation of democracy.

Characteristics of Liberals:

The strength of liberals is the accentuation of two aspects of the moral matrix—care and fairness. Expression of these values helps move the culture in the direction of increased humanism and acceptance of diversity, supporting victims of both social and economic oppression. They are more likely than conservatives to impose regulations that help protect the public. This often comes at the expense of big corporations that may harm the environment, public health, and workers' rights in the pursuit of profits.

Liberals are more likely than conservatives to believe people are inherently good and that the removal of the constraints of tradition allows them to flourish. They often push for new social arrangements they believe will enhance fairness. As Robert Kennedy said, "I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?"

A weakness of liberals is their failure to consider the effects of rapid change on social cohesion and stability. The push for an ideal world (according to their value matrix) can weaken the traditions and institutions that support unity. Furthermore, the pursuit of transformation may lead to unexpected negative consequences.

The liberal political philosophy emphasizes the need for government to provide a safety net to protect those with limited means and influence. They believe government has a role to play in maintaining economic and social justice.

John Lennon sang "Imagine there's no countries... And no religion too...And the world will live as one." This blissful liberal ideal would be the definition of hell for conservatives.

Let's keep in mind that belief systems are arbitrary. People don't usually sit down with a spread sheet and weigh the pros and cons of conservative and liberal ideology before choosing a political party. Rather, they notice how the policies of each party resonate with their established value matrix. The choice then happens at an unconscious level.

But how is our value matrix formed in the first place?

Measureable Differences between Conservatives and Liberals

## Dr. Darren Schreiber, a political neuroscientist at the University of Exeter (UK), performed brain scans on people participating in a gambling game. He found that conservatives were using a brain structure called the amygdala when making risky decisions. This structure is at the center of our threat response system. Liberals, in contrast, were processing their decisions though the insula, which monitors our internal feeling state. He was able to predict political preference with 82.9% accuracy based on differences in brain function.

## A study by the University College of London (Kanai and Rees) shows that conservatives have more gray matter (nerve cells) in the right amygdala—again, the brain structure that processes fear and disgust. The same structural MRI analysis revealed that liberals have increased gray matter in another brain structure called the anterior cingulate cortex. Connected to the insula referenced above, it processes empathy, tolerance for uncertainty, and emotional decision making. Some studies even suggest that repeatedly viewing the world through a conservative or liberal lens may actually cause changes in brain structure—like a muscle getting stronger with exercise. The influence of brain function on political affiliation may thus be a two way street.

Without reference to brain structure, feeling threatened and afraid pushes everyone in a conservative direction. Research showed the terrorist attacks of 9/11 produced a conservative shift across the United States. Similar studies of events that elicit fear validate this effect in many other countries.

A Yale study in 2017 revealed the opposite effect also holds true. Guiding people to imagine they are perfectly safe from harm shifts their views on social issues in a more liberal direction—at least temporarily.

Researchers at Virginia Tech used MRI brain scans to document that conservatives have measurably stronger reactions to disgusting images than liberals. (Disgust evolved to keep us safe from disease causing organisms or secretions such as cockroaches, rats, garbage, feces, pus, vomit, etc.). This is another example of different brain functions of those on the left and right of the political spectrum.

## Dr. Peter Hatemi of Penn State University and Dr. Rose McDermott of Brown University studied the relationship between a person's deep-seated sensitivity to personal threats and his or her political beliefs. The researchers found that people with enhanced threat sensitivity tended to be more conservative. One expression of this was less tolerance for immigration and people of different races.

A 2016 study at Northwestern University found that conservative and liberal brains took different approaches to problem solving. When stuck on a problem, liberals were more likely to have a sudden burst of insight—an "aha" moment. Conservatives (of equal intelligence) have a more structured cognitive style, taking a more organized step-by-step approach to solve the same problem.

Decades of studies have shown that conservatives tend to avoid uncertainty and dislike ambiguity. They prefer familiar music, realistic paintings, and unambiguous writing. By self-report, conservatives are more likely than liberals to say they value loyalty, tradition, respect for authority, security, and purity. They see themselves as people of honor, duty, religion, and patriotism. Revealingly, conservatives seek dogs that are loyal and obedient.

By contrast, liberals are likely to favor new experiences, nonconformity and tolerance for differences. Experimental music, abstract art, arrhythmic verse, and stories with ambiguous endings are more likely to appeal to them. They see themselves as trusting, upbeat, and optimistic. Tradition, loyalty, and respect for authority are less important to liberals. Instead of obedience, liberals prefer dogs that are gentle and relate to their owner more like a friend.

And it is not just a matter of preferences. Research (Hibbing, et al) shows that liberals and conservatives actually perceive the world differently. When asked to describe the current economic conditions in the U.S., liberals see current policies as benefitting the "undeserving rich." Conservatives look at the same policies and see the "underserving poor" benefitting from government handouts. The world appears very different depending on whether you are looking at it from the left or the right.

Other examples of neurological and personality differences (on average) between conservatives and liberals could be cited, but the important point here is that they exist. We need to keep these dissimilarities in mind if we want to develop a realistic strategy for bridging the political divide.

On a less scientific level, the differences between conservatives and liberals are frequently made clear to me during everyday interactions with people. A short conversation with a new acquaintance will often provide me with clues about their political leanings. In my head, I will say things like "I bet this person is a conservative." Or "They sound like they may be a liberal." In our current climate of division, I often do a cautious "mating dance" of dialogue before I decide if it is safe to bring up certain political topics. I suspect you may have had the same experience. Science now tells me that these distinctions between people—that we notice intuitively—have a biological basis.

One question that comes to mind is this: Are these variances between people strictly inherited like brown eyes? Or do life experiences mold our brain like clay in the hands of a sculptor? This is, of course, the classic nature verses nurture debate.

#  The Case for Nurture

George Lakoff is a UC Berkeley Professor of Cognitive Science. After decades of research, he concludes that our neural circuitry is largely shaped by our childhood experiences. Our world view as adults is the result of how the neurons (nerve cells) of our brain are wired during growth and development. Once constructed, this hardwired computer acts as a filter. Information that does not fit in our world view is ignored, rejected, or even attacked. (More in the Cognitive Dissonance chapter.)

Like Dr. Haidt, Dr. Lakoff believes that the foundation of politics is morality—the individual's beliefs about right and wrong. These beliefs are molded by many influences including peers, teachers, community, media, and religion. But the most important influence is our parents—although I am not referring to the political preference of our parents. Research has shown that our tendency toward conservative values or liberal values is directly related to the parenting style in our family of origin.

The development of "Strict Father Morality" is pretty self-explanatory. If the parenting style (usually of the father) is rigid, demanding, and authoritarian, the child is more likely to develop a world view that supports conservative politics. The strong moral matrix value of "authority" produced by such parenting supports typical conservative beliefs in hierarchical views such as:

rich above poor

Western Culture above non-Western

American above foreign

whites above minorities

men above women

Christians above non-Christians

straights above gays

employers above employees

man above nature

God above man

In some people, these hierarchical views may be supported by referring to the "authority" of Bible interpretations. In other cases, rationalizations are invoked such as "people on top economically and socially are there because they deserve it. They are smarter, have worked harder, and have followed the rules for success." In reality though, these hierarchical views develop independent of any outside justification.

Understanding the deeply held value of hierarchy helps clarify the conservative opposition to government programs such as welfare, affirmative action, equal pay, and immigration. Conservative opposition to President Obama was particularly intense because he was viewed as breaking several rules of hierarchy.

Conservatives hate "line-cutters." Anyone who skips up the hierarchy is viewed as pushing down those who "rightly deserve" to move ahead. No wonder many conservatives find liberals so irritating. They see the liberal push for government programs to "level the playing field" as an attack on their deeply held value of the "righteousness" of hierarchy—not to mention their foundational belief that people are personally responsible for their own lives.

Just as conservative values are influenced by authoritarian parenting, Dr. Lakoff believes liberal values are influenced by "Nurturing Parent Morality." This childrearing style focuses not on bending the child to parental authority, but in supporting the development of the child to reach individual potential. A nurturing parent is more likely to promote independence rather than conformity, freedom of expression rather than rule following, and child fulfillment rather than child obedience.

These influences help develop personalities that value fairness over order and independence over authority. The positive childhood experiences that result help mold a personality that is trusting and hopeful rather than skeptical and fearful. Liberals do not believe helping others up the ladder will result in their own fall down the ladder. This leads to support for policies that use public resources to promote fairness and equity throughout society.

The trusting personality that results from nurturing parenting allows the liberal to express caring and empathy to a wide range of "others" (globalism), while conservatives limit their care to more constricted circles—family, church congregation, or those similar to themselves (nationalism).

Even though the above generalizations are based on scientific research, our minds will automatically focus on exceptions. Many may say "I am a conservative and my parents were perfectly nurturing." Others may question, "My father was a strict authoritarian, so how did I become a faithful Democrat?" It is easy to become indignant as we read about notions that may feel like stereotyping. Human personality is complex and clearly the result of multiple influences. For now, let's concede there is evidence that nurture influences the development of our moral matrix. We might then reasonably ask, to what extent is genetics involved?

#  The Case for Nature

The idea that our upbringing can influence our political attitudes makes intuitive sense for most people. By contrast, when we read that our tendency to be conservative or liberal may be partly in our DNA, many will resist. The notion that we are not in full conscious control of our motivations and actions is disquieting. Science says we had better get used to the idea.

Twin studies show that as much as 40% of our personality can be attributed to our genes. A surprising range of personality factors are influenced by our genetics, including the degree to which we like jazz, spicy foods, abstract art, and religion. Even our likelihood of dying in a car crash or getting a divorce has a hereditary component. It should not be surprising then that political orientation is partially affected by our DNA. Between a third and a half of variability among people on political attitudes is explained by genetics. Our upbringing in a liberal or conservative household accounts for much less.

Dr. Peter Hatemi, who specializes in studying the relationship between genetics and political temperament, identified four chromosome regions that correlate with ideology. Recent studies have become even more specific. Yet, research into the precise way genes influence personality is at a formative stage.

Dr. Shelley E. Taylor and Shimon Saphire-Bernstein of UCLA have shown that variations in a gene (OXTR) contribute to a person's natural level of optimism. Timothy Bates at the University of Edinburgh conducted a confirming study of identical and non-identical twins that demonstrated a genetic influence on optimism and pessimism. Of course, life events and circumstances were also shown to play a role, regardless of genetics.

Psychiatrist Dr. Murray Stein who studies the biological underpinnings of anxiety at the University of California, San Diego summarizes by saying that at least some portion of human behavior can be traced back to genes. "We are starting to see findings of specific genes being associated with particular kinds of temperaments."

Keep in mind that biological antecedents are not tantamount to destiny. You are not born a Republican or Democrat. What you are born with is a predisposition which can influence the chances of leaning left or right.

Researchers in Germany and Sweden, Dr. Tina B. Lonsdorf for one, demonstrated that different versions of genes that effect neurotransmitter metabolism (serotonin and dopamine) in the brain influence a person's threat sensitivity and susceptibility to anxiety disorders. Other studies have shown that fearfulness can be selectively bred into and out of mice, indicating a strong genetic component. While there is no such thing as a "fear gene," many genes work together to control neurotransmitters and receptors that can increase the natural tendency toward threat sensitivity.

Another example of the connection between genetics and behavior is both counterintuitive and scientifically unexpected. Dr. Brian Dias from Emory University has demonstrated that specific fears can be passed between generations. (See Dec. 1, 2013 Journal article in Nature Neuroscience) Mice exposed to a traumatic or stressful experience while smelling cherry blossoms produced offspring fearful of the scent—even though they had never encountered it before! This fear was then passed on through generations of mice. How could this be possible?

When the original mice were exposed to stress in the presence of the cherry blossom scent, it caused observable changes in their DNA. (Portions of DNA were chemically covered up in a process called epigenetic methylation). Somehow these changes recorded the link between the scent and the fear—and this connection was passed on to the offspring through heredity. In other words, the environmental experience caused gene alterations that could be passed to successive generations. Wow.

The same kind of effect was observed years earlier in the altered physiology of children prenatally exposed to starvation during the Dutch Hunger Winter of 1944-45. During these years, the nazis intentionally blocked food supplies to the Netherlands. Dutch children in the womb at this time were influenced by the famine for their entire lives. It was observed that when these children became adults, they had increased health risks for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and schizophrenia. By age 68, they had a 10% higher mortality rate than normal.

Modern analysis has shown their DNA was altered by methylation as they experienced the stress of malnutrition in the womb, permanently slowing their metabolism. (Unrelated to politics, this speaks volumes about the importance of pre-natal care.)

On a broader scale, a DNA analysis of 13,000 adults found several genes that differed between conservatives and liberals. Most of the genes regulated neurotransmitter function (particularly glutamate and serotonin) related to the brain's heightened response to threat as frequently found in conservatives.

Other studies have discovered differences in genes related to the neurotransmitter dopamine that is tied to the experience of pleasure in novelty seeking and change. This can produce threat insensitivity—a well-established correlate of liberalism. For example, Dr. Jaime Settle of UC-San Diego looked at a single gene (DRD4) known to increase exploratory behavior and sensation seeking. He unexpectedly discovered that the gene seems to push political preference to the left only in those who reported having many friends when they were children. It seems the expression of DRD4 is influenced by environmental circumstances.This is supportive of the oft stated conclusion that genes and environment work in concert to produce the physical, mental, and social traits that are eventually expressed in people. In this case, a single gene may impact political attitudes, but the expression of that gene may be modified by the environment.

It is becoming clear that genes influence most aspects of our personality. With respect to political preference, the above represent just a few examples of the ongoing research. The point here is that personality traits effecting political choices may have their origins in innate genetic differences in people. Though the effects of any single gene may be tiny, a combination of genes may make one person more "threat sensitive" and another person more "novelty seeking." Over a range of research studies, these are the traits that push a person toward conservatism or liberalism, respectively.

You wouldn't think poorly of someone just because they were left handed or had freckled skin. We need to consider that political choices may reflect the same kind of natural variation between people.

The nature verses nurture debate has long been resolved. It is a false choice. Substantial research supports both genetic and environmental influences on personality. Beyond that, our modern understanding of genetic expression—whether a gene is turned on or not—includes interaction with environmental events. In a theoretical example, a particular gene for threat sensitivity may be expressed when a child is raised in an authoritarian environment and not be expressed if the same child is raised in a nurturing environment. This falls in line with the insights of Dr. Lakoff.

For purposes of this writing, we do not need to quantify the nature/nurture dynamic in value development. Our bottom line is this:

1) People develop value preferences (moral matrix) based on both their genetic inheritance and childhood experiences.

2) These natural value preferences strongly influence political party affiliation, or in today's terms, whether a person leans left or right.

In order to truly understand members of the other "tribe," we must accept that people differ for reasons not under their control. They may have different values, beliefs, and reactions to the same stimuli—like threatening events or opportunities to express compassion. Through both genetics and life experiences, we all develop neural systems that influence our political choices. This awareness is the first step toward healing our divided nation.

In other words, when you encounter people from the other political tribe, cut them some slack. They can't help themselves.

#  Cognitive Dissonance

Let's examine a hypothetical (but not unprecedented) situation:

1) You consider yourself to be a person with strong moral values, including the maintaining of fidelity in marriage.

2) You support a political candidate who espouses the same moral values. You make financial contributions to their campaign and vote for them with enthusiasm.

3) You then hear a news report that they have engaged in an extramarital affair.

Unconsciously, you assess the new information: Am I a bad judge of character? Did I waste my money? Did I waste my vote? Was I fooled? Was I stupid?

To relieve the psychological stress, you might discount the news as untrue or exaggerated. Or, you might downplay the importance of the news by telling yourself it was a human mistake and does not reflect the politician's normal character. Or, you might justify your choice because the politician's character is not as important to you as their support for the political agenda that you favor. One way or another, your mind will come up with rationalizations to reduce the bad feelings you have about your choice.

The mental conflict you experience is called cognitive dissonance. It is defined as: the psychological stress or mental discomfort experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two contradictory beliefs or behaves in a way that is in conflict with his or her values.

In 1957, American social psychologist Leon Festinger offered evidence that human beings strive for internal psychological consistency. When presented with information that conflicts with the world view we have constructed, our mind immediately attempt to resolve the discrepancy to reduce discomfort.

Over 60 years of research confirms the operation of cognitive dissonance in a wide variety of scenarios. A person might hold the belief that "I would be healthier if I lost weight." At the same time, he/she might think: "I want to eat a delicious bowl of ice cream." If we eat the ice cream, a common way to resolve this stress is to rationalize our behavior: "I deserve one last treat before I start my diet tomorrow." or "Ice cream is a good source of calcium which my body needs."

Research shows that if we buy an expensive new car, we tend to increase our opinion of the car and decrease our opinion of cars that we did not choose. This supports our mental comfort because we can say "I am a smart consumer. I made a good choice." College students who were induced to cheat on an exam reported that honesty on tests was less important than they had expressed before the exam. The rationalization that "cheating is not a big deal" or "everyone cheats" reduces guilt and personal disappointment.

The effects of cognitive dissonance are readily observed in politics. In a study of six presidential elections it was found that people who voted for a particular candidate had a significantly higher opinion of the person after they voted than they did before. The increase in positive regard for the candidate was directly related to the difficulty of the decision. If two candidates were considered about equal before the vote, the opinion of the person they eventually voted for increased dramatically after they voted. (The opinion of non-voters showed little change.)

Once a candidate has been elected, cognitive dissonance inhibits a person from considering negative information about the individual for whom they voted. As in our chapter opening example, it is psychologically uncomfortable to say: "How could I have had such poor judgment to vote for this person?" In addition, we also tend to reject positive information about a candidate for whom we did not vote.

With the growth of cable news, talk radio, social media, podcasts, etc., we are constantly bombarded with information about politics. The most comfortable way for us to deal with the conflicting views is to accept the positive information about our party of choice ("our tribe") and reject positive information about the other party. If we don't do this, it elevates our level of cognitive dissonance.

The media and news sources increasingly use cognitive dissonance to increase their bottom line. They know our brain actually releases pleasure chemicals (neurotransmitters) when we hear or see information that confirms our world view. Thus, most viewers of news and politics are looking for affirmation, not information. Media outlets can "lock in" more viewers/listeners/readers by supporting one side of the political spectrum rather than fairly presenting both sides of controversial issues.

It used to be said that news anchor Walter Cronkite was "the most trusted man in America." He worked hard to be as unbiased as possible as he presented the news to his CBS network audience. Today, many media sources have discovered they can gain more followers—and thus make more money—by presenting information in a way that reinforces our bias. Our psychological distress is reduced and we feel better about ourselves when our world view is reinforced.

Our political thoughts are strongly influenced by the need to reduce the stress of holding conflicting beliefs. For example, I may consider myself to be a loyal conservative yet disagree with party line positions on a specific issue—say global warming. Instead of denying climate change exists (in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence), I can reduce my stress by believing that global warming is part of a natural cycle not influenced by the burning of fossil fuels.

If I think of myself as a liberal, the least stressful position for me is to support all liberal policies—even if I consider myself to be "pro-life" in the abortion debate. Thus, cognitive dissonance supports the elimination of diverse opinions within each political party. The "purification" of party supporters becomes an obstacle to compromises that might otherwise move the country forward to more rational policies.

Cognitive dissonance is supported by another psychological process called confirmation bias. Once we have developed a point of view, we stop gathering (ignore) information that contradicts our view. We don't perceive information objectively, but actively look for information that supports our belief system. In other words, we pick out the pieces of data that make us feel good because they confirm our prejudices. This effect is on nightly display on cable news channels when we observe politicians reacting to the events of the day. It may seem like the two tribes are living in different worlds.

The power of subconscious processes like cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias is important to our discussion because they may prevent us from honestly examining our own political beliefs—or the political beliefs of others.

It may be unsettling, but our thoughts and behaviors are constantly under the influence of psychological forces outside of our awareness. For example, research has shown that, with all other things equal, people who are in a warm room are more likely to say they accept global warming than people who are in a cool room. Obviously, room temperature should have no effect on reasoned consideration of the facts, but it does.

In another example, people whose polling place happens to be in a church are more likely to vote conservative than people who vote in a public school setting (again, keeping all other factors equal). In an even more extreme example, research subjects who are shown a cartoon happy face for a few milliseconds (too quick to register consciously) report being more favorable to immigration than subjects who are first shown a cartoon frowning face before being asked about the topic.

Scientists have documented countless examples of how our behavior is influenced by subconscious psychological forces. When we observe ourselves behaving in ways that seem incongruent with our self-image or beliefs, we construct reasons to justify our actions after the fact. Author Steven Pinker refers to the portion of the brain involved as the "baloney generator." It is so effective that we believe the stories we make up about our behavior even though the reasons have nothing to do with our real motivations—which remain unknown to us.

As you read this essay, you will likely find yourself experiencing some degree of resistance. No one likes to think their choices are the result of anything besides absolute free will and intelligence. We say things to ourselves like: "I am a conservative because I am smart enough to see how the world really works. Liberals think everybody should have a free ride on the backs of those—like me— who have earned their way in life." Or: "I am a liberal because I am compassionate enough to see we are all in this together. Concentrating wealth in the hands of a few is unjust and jeopardizes the future of our country."

No one wants to say: "My political views are strongly influenced by my genetics and childhood experiences. There is nothing inherently superior about my beliefs."

Political operatives have become adept at manipulating our subconscious minds. They work to widen the gap between conservatives and liberals because it serves their political and economic agendas. If we want to bridge the political divide, we must become more aware of our own psychological needs and how they are being used to manipulate us. The mass media is a prime example, influencing us in ways that stoke the fires of political division.

#  Why the Broadcast Media Took Sides

In the 20th century, radio and television changed the nature of American politics. Between 1933 and 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt used his "fireside chat" radio broadcasts to reassure the nation, support his policy agenda, and maintain his high regard among the electorate. The audience for some of his radio talks included over half of the adult population of the country. In 1960, the first televised presidential debate was held between Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon. Many political observers believe this debate swung the election in Kennedy's favor because of his youthful good looks and self-confidence. Nixon was perspiring and appeared nervous, while his refusal to wear make-up exposed his 5 o'clock shadow. (Nixon declined televised debates in his Presidential runs of 1968 and 1972.)

The power of the media was not lost on politicians or policy makers. Bandwidth for television and radio broadcasting is limited. Aware of this, in 1949 the Federal Communications Commission introduced the Fairness Doctrine. In order to renew their license to broadcast over one of the small number of available channels, the FCC required stations to present controversial issues of public importance in a way that was "honest, equitable, and balanced." There were two additional corollary rules. The "Personal Attack Rule" required stations to notify people or groups that were attacked during a broadcast and provide them with an opportunity to respond on air. The "Political Editorial Rule" required political opponents of candidates who were endorsed by broadcast editorials be given reasonable opportunity to respond on air.

Whether it was a matter of professional integrity or just rule following, broadcast journalists went out of their way to promote an image of impartiality in their programming and newscasts. Objective reporting was a source of pride for the major newsrooms. Facts were facts and opinions were labeled—and rarely offered.

And then came cable news and the internet. In 1984, the Supreme Court looked at the media landscape and ruled that expanding communication options made the limits of the Fairness Doctrine unnecessary. In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine.

A legislative attempt to reinstate the policy in that same year was thwarted by a Ronald Reagan presidential veto. Another attempt in 1991 was tabled under threat of veto from George H. W. Bush. While some media outlets attempted to maintain the Fairness Doctrine, others were motivated to lose their objectivity to improve ratings or support owner bias. It was now up to citizens to attempt to separate truth from lies and to sort facts from opinions.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 fostered even more change in the broadcast landscape. The act was sold as a step toward deregulation that would foster competition between media outlets. It rolled back the provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 that prevented corporations from owning large numbers of radio stations in different markets. With the cap on radio station ownership gone, corporations began buying up local stations across the country. In 1983 there were over 50 major media companies. Mergers reduced that number to fewer than 10 after the passage of the Telecommunications Act. As of this writing, six corporations control 90% of the media in America and more corporate consolidations have been proposed.

Recall that the 1990s saw the "purification" of political parties with Republicans becoming solidly conservative and Democratic solidly liberal. At the same time, the safeguards that had previously kept news organizations in check were removed. Without the Fairness Doctrine, radio and television stations could pander to the demographic that would give them the highest ratings—and thus the most advertising dollars. Owners with strong political views could also use their stations to promote their personal agenda.

It was clear by this time that demographic changes in the country were working against the Republican Party. While the vast majority of Republicans are not wealthy, protecting the interests of corporations and the wealthy was a concern for some in the privileged class. Billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch seized on the opportunity presented by the demise of the Fairness Doctrine and the change in the Telecommunications Act. In 1996, he launched Fox News Channel. His philosophy was to provide news and commentary that counteracted what he considered to be "liberal bias" in other media.

Murdock quickly appointed Roger Ailes as CEO of Fox News operations. Ailes had earned his television credentials early in his career, winning an Emmy Award in 1968 as Executive Producer of The Mike Douglas Show. He later became a strategist for the Republican Party, helping Richard Nixon win the Presidency with the race-based Southern Strategy. He was also instrumental in the campaigns of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Ailes is credited with the "Orchestra Pit Theory" of garnering campaign news coverage as summarized in the following quote:

If you have two guys on stage and one guy says, "I have a solution to the Middle East problem," and the other guy falls in the orchestra pit, who do you think is going to be on the evening news?

In a clever attempt to rebrand the Fox News bias, Ailes adopted the slogan "Fair and Balanced." To accelerate increased viewership of the network, Ailes took the unusual step of providing payments to cable providers of $11 for each new subscriber. Fox News grew to become the number one rated cable news network. By 2015, 94% of Fox News viewers self-identified as Republican or leaning Republican.

In an interesting side note, the launching of conservative Fox news and liberal MSNBC are connected. In the early days of cable television, NBC executives were exploring the launching of a cable channel called America's Talking, which would provide commentary about news and politics. They hired Roger Ailes as the first network president. When the network showed lackluster viewership growth under Ailes, NBC pitched Bill Gates on the idea of funding an expansion of America's Talking, rebranding it as Microsoft/NBC or MSNBC. Ailes realized this move would diminish his control and so he left the company—soon to be hired by Rupert Murdoch to develop Fox News.

After its launch in 1996, MSNBC had trouble gaining traction in the competitive cable news arena. It consistently was overshadowed by then top dog CNN and was losing ground to conservative Fox News. Taking a lesson from Roger Ailes at Fox, in 2005 MSNBC began hiring left leaning commentators beginning with Keith Olbermann and eventually including Chris Matthews, and Rachel Maddow. It soon surpassed CNN and consistently ranks second in primetime viewership behind Fox News.

Radio was also impacted by the removal of the Fairness Doctrine. AM radio was in sharp decline in the 1980's as Top 40 radio stations moved to the higher fidelity of FM. Talk radio—that did not need the broadcast quality of FM—became attractive for AM station operators. After the withdrawal of the Fairness Doctrine, the move to talk shows was accelerated because hosts could be as controversial and bombastic as they wanted without any need to present opposing views. Strong personalities with over-the-top commentary boosted AM station ratings.

Conservative talk show audiences are large and loyal, finding the shows to be both entertaining and supportive of their beliefs. One possible reason has been studied by Dr. Danielle Remmerswaal and her colleagues at Erasmus University in the Netherlands. They found a reciprocal relationship between confirmation bias and the natural conservative personality trait of threat sensitivity. In other words, naturally anxious individuals were shown to seek out negative information that validated their fears and world view. Some radio programming with liberal bias also emerged, but never developed the same dedicated following.

For decades, the number one conservative talk radio host has been Rush Limbaugh. After dropping out of Southeastern Missouri State University following his freshmen year in 1970, Limbaugh became a music disc jockey at some small radio stations in the Pittsburgh area. He was fired in late 1974, being told he would never make it in radio and should perhaps go into sales. Despite this advice, he persisted, evolving from music radio to talk radio. When the Fairness Doctrine was lifted, the Wall Street Journal proclaimed Rush had been "liberated from the East Germany of liberal media domination." Today he earns over 80 million dollars a year and has an average of 14 million listeners daily.

In 1992, President Reagan thanked Limbaugh for promoting Republican and conservative principles. In 1994, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives made him an honorary member. Although his popularity has slipped following some personal controversies, he and others like him have become dominant influences in American politics.

The rise of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh can be viewed as a reaction to conservative perceptions of "main stream" media as hostile to Republican politicians and policies. During the Vietnam War, Vice President Spiro Agnew began attacking the news media for their unflattering coverage of the policies of the Nixon White House. Demonstrating his speech writer's vocabulary prowess, Agnew once called the news media "nattering nabobs of negativism" and called major network news reporters "an effete corps of impudent snobs." His continuing attacks on the press began a trend in Republican politics of denouncing news media as biased and incompetent. Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin was famous for referring to the "lame stream media." President Donald Trump went so far as to call the press "the enemy of the people."

Many conservatives would agree with this characterization, while liberals are likely to consider such statements an attack on freedom of the press. Undermining respect for the press is worrisome for democracy. Probing journalism is one of the major checks on the concentration and abuse of power by the government. Our founders knew this, enshrining freedom of the press in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

One of the major issues facing our country today is how to protect the rights of free speech and freedom of the press while limiting the damage caused by the rapid dissemination of false information through electronic media. Knowing how confirmation bias can build an audience, some pundits enhance their own bottom line by encouraging the denigration and even hatred of the opposition.

As we have seen, our brain finds it rewarding to listen to information that supports our world view. Social media sites understand this. Sixty-six percent of Facebook users get their news primarily from the Facebook news feed. The company has developed an algorithm that takes advantage of our natural reward system to keep us on the site longer. This increases their advertising revenue. Analyzing data they have collected about us, Facebook knows if we are Republican or Democrat. They tailor the news feed based on our personal political leanings to make it more pleasurable for us to read.

For example, when Melania Trump gave a controversial speech at the Republican National Convention for which she was accused of plagiarizing Michelle Obama, liberal Facebook users were offered a scathing report to read under the title "Pathetic." Those readers that the Facebook algorithm identified as conservative instead read a defense of the speech under the title "Flashback: Liberals Always Attack GOP Wives." On the political battlefield, Facebook offered logistical support to both tribes. Is it any wonder conservatives and liberals find less and less common ground?

Perhaps the best we can hope for right now is that we are aware of our own cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. Overcoming these natural processes may allow us to seek out responsible and truthful reporting as much as possible. In the absence of the Fairness Doctrine, citizens who want the best for their country must take responsibility to suppress their own biases and critically evaluate what they hear and read. Given our human nature, this level of critical thinking may be a tall order.

A 2016 report from Stanford University's Graduate School of Education found that students in middle school, high school, and even into college were terrible at evaluating the quality and reliability of online information. The authors used words like "bleak" and "dismaying" to describe the findings. But they were also able to demonstrate that young people could improve their skills—by evaluating the sources of information, considering biases and motivations, and appraising what was left out of an article. They suggested that media literacy instruction in schools is vital so young people can learn to better discern reliable fact from motivated fiction, dependable truth from self-serving lies.

Good decision-making requires good information. People who don't want us to know the truth about matters—because of their own economic, religious, or political agenda—have adopted the strategy of promoting misinformation. This includes the disparaging of science.

#  False Information and Conspiracy Theories

Why are many Americans comfortable with a world view built on misinformation?

Why do many Americans distrust the findings of science?

There are multiple factors involved, including these:

  * Lack of trust in facts and the mistrust of scientists (and other "experts") has been promoted by Fox News and conservative talk radio.

  * Big corporations (think tobacco, fossil fuel, drugs, and guns) have promoted mistrust in science for their own economic benefit.

  * Some psychologists have speculated that "truth" itself may have different meanings for conservatives and liberals, with those on the right preferring faith, intuition, and "revealed truth" to the kind of facts verified by science.

  * By personality, conservatives are more cautious about change, including the embracing of new ideas. In contrast, liberals are more likely to embrace novelty and try on new ideas—even those unsupported by science.

  * For both conservatives and liberals, cognitive dissonance supports the avoidance of new information that threatens world view.

  * Motivated reasoning is the tendency to allow our wishes, hopes and fears to interfere with logical evaluation of information.

  * Peer Pressure is behind the tendency to hold beliefs that will help us be accepted in the political tribe with which we identify. The "purifying" of Republican and Democratic ideologies has accentuated this tendency, reducing independent thinking.

It is commonly held that conservatives seem especially likely to distrust science and embrace false claims. A 2017 report by a team of scholars from Harvard Kennedy School and Northeastern University concluded that: "Misinformation is currently predominantly a pathology of the right." A few statistics demonstrate just how widespread is the acceptance of misinformation on the part of Republicans:

57% do not believe humans evolved over time.

41% believe humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.

75% do not believe climate change is caused by humans.

45% believe the ACA (Obamacare) included "death panels."

54% believe Barack Obama is a Muslim.

Contrary to stereotypes liberals often hold, however, careful analysis demonstrates that conservative beliefs in misinformation are not the result of a lack of intelligence or education. College educated Republicans are actually more likely to believe false claims about President Obama, the ACA, and climate change than blue collar Republicans.

If you lean liberal, reading these paragraphs about the conservative tendency to deny science and embrace misinformation has likely caused a dopamine pleasure hit —because it supports your beliefs and validates your world view. Conservatives, here is your moment of pleasure. Liberals are also susceptible to the same psychological processes, often believing debunked ideas around vaccines, GMO foods, gun control, and fracking for example.

In a 2019 Scientific American article, researchers Craig Harper and Thom Baguley summarized three large studies that investigated whether liberals and conservatives differed in their reactions to misinformation. They found that liberals and conservatives were equally motivated to believe fake news, to avoid exposure to conflicting views, and to deny scientific findings that were inconsistent with their ideology.

Modern mass media has exacerbated the problem of misinformation. In a comprehensive study published in Science in 2018 (Vosougli), researchers found that falsehoods are 70% more likely to be re-tweeted than accurate information. The scientists suggested two possible reasons: First, fake news seems to be more "novel" than real news—standing out and generating interest. Second, fake news evokes much more emotion than the average tweet—commonly eliciting surprise, curiosity, or disgust.

Neither tribe emerges from the food fight of misinformation with clean clothes. As the next essays will show, both conservatives and liberals need to examine the information they consume with a critical mind. Ask yourself questions such as:

\--Are they molding my world view to promote their own political or economic agenda?

\--Am I agreeing with the information because it reduces my cognitive dissonance and stimulates my reward center?

Science attempts to provide unbiased information that should help with policy decisions. For this reason, the misunderstanding and mistrust of science is bad for America.

#  The Depreciation of Science

Scientific facts can generate cognitive dissonance when they conflict with our world view. This seems to be a particular problem for those with strongly held beliefs. Before we examine this in depth, let's take a look at the nature of science.

Science is a way of understanding that relies on careful observations and reasonable, logical conclusions based on those observations. Science progresses as we improve our tools for observation (telescopes, microscopes, radiation detectors, etc.) and observe under carefully controlled conditions (scientific experiments).

When many observations point in the same direction, our understanding increases. Experiments are repeated and conclusions challenged until scientists with the proper expertise reach consensus. Even then, the answers science provides are always considered tentative—open to revision as required by new observations. Scientists often disagree as they explore new areas of knowledge. Nevertheless, as observations are refined and conclusions are critiqued through peer review, the truth usually emerges.

In the previous paragraph, I emphasized the words proper expertise and consensus. Those who would like to deny scientific understanding to relieve cognitive dissonance will often reference a scientist that espouses a viewpoint supporting their beliefs. So how does the non-scientist know who to trust when both political extremes claim science is on their side?

1) Look for expertise. Is the scientist an expert in the field being discussed?

2) Look for credentials. Is the scientist associated with a highly regarded academic institution or professional organization?

3) Look for motivations. Is the scientist working for a company or organization that stands to profit from the advocated policy?

4) Look for peer review. Have the facts and ideas been evaluated in well regarded scientific journals?

There is a spirit of (usually) friendly competition between scientists to develop original ideas and then defend them with meticulous research. Having your work stand up to peer scrutiny and then be lauded as contributing to scientific progress is deeply rewarding for most scientists. By the nature of their personality, most scientists are not motivated by politics. In addition to peer status, they are motivated by the search for truth and the self-satisfaction that comes from solving problems.

Science can serve as reliable guidance in public policy. Values may be applied to scientific facts to make political decisions, but decisions that support values without reference to established facts do not serve society. Good science can promote healthy democracy by providing support for policies that reflect the reality of the world.

Here is an example of how bad "science" can be used for the benefit of a few and the harm of many:

Smoking causes cancer. This fact was established through extensive scientific research by the early 1950's. On December 15, 1953, the presidents and CEOs of the six largest tobacco companies in the United States met at the Plaza Hotel in New York City. They agreed to cooperate on a public relations campaign to defend their products. The strategy would be to promote the false idea that scientific doubt remained on the link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer. They founded the Tobacco Industry Research Committee with the stated purpose of supporting research that would provide a "balanced presentation of all the facts." The Committee met with staff from all the major newspapers and magazines in the country to aggressively disseminate information supporting the industries stance that the science was ongoing and there was "no proof" of harm in smoking cigarettes.

Major scientific reports in 1957, 1959, and 1962 repeatedly confirmed that tobacco smoke was a carcinogen. Even scientists hired by the tobacco industry had come to the same conclusion, yet the industry continued to promote the myth of "doubt" about the science. This is a classic case of greed defeating morality. Finally, the Surgeon General issued a report in 1964 titled Smoking and Health. It not only linked smoking to lung cancer, but to a variety of other diseases as well.

The tobacco industry's response? They redoubled their efforts to find scientists who would support their views, parading them before Congress when legislation to require warning labels and limit advertising was being considered. By the mid-1980s, the tobacco industry had invested over $100 million in hundreds of researchers around the country in an effort to keep alive the idea that controversy existed around smoking and health.

Scientific controversy and doubt was extended by hiring scientists with strong reputations—to work outside their area of expertise. When tobacco companies funded research into the health effects of tobacco smoking, one of the men they hired was Dr. Frederick Seitz. He had impressive credentials. Seitz was a solid state physicist who had helped develop the atomic bomb in the Manhattan Project. In the 1950s, he became science advisor to NATO and in the 1960s he served as president of the National Academy of Sciences.

Due to a variety of personal and economic circumstances, Dr. Seitz went to work for R.J. Reynolds in 1979. He was given a budget of 43 million dollars to hand out in tobacco research grants. Industry documents explain why. "Support (for scientific research) over the years has produced a number of authorities upon whom the industry could draw for expert testimony in court suits and hearings by government bodies." The research was designed not just to promote doubt, but also to create friendly witnesses that could be called upon when needed. Of course, Dr. Seitz was trained as a physicist, not a biologist or medical researcher. Yet his status was a valuable asset to the tobacco industry.

In the 1950's, nearly half of all adult Americans smoked. After 1964, the rates began to drop—down to 37% in 1969. Yet R.J. Reynolds reported $2.25 billion of net revenue that year. Today, about 14% of Americans continue to smoke and tobacco companies continue to make billions in profits. In sworn testimony before Congress in 1994, the top executives of the seven largest tobacco companies all said they did not believe nicotine was addictive and that evidence of the health effects of tobacco was inconclusive. In 2015, the salary of the CEO of Reynolds American was $13,448,538. Imagine the level of cognitive dissonance generated when you make several million dollars a year to sell a product that kills 1,300 people a day in the U.S. alone.

As cigarette smoking has decreased in the United States, tobacco companies have increased their efforts to market in other countries, particularly in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Over one billion people around the world are smokers, annually causing over 8 million deaths directly and 1.2 million due to second hand smoke. With global profits of $900 billion, preventable deaths are not likely to slow the industry push for new customers.

With the development of E-cigarette technology as a nicotine delivery system, big tobacco is eyeing another multi-billion dollar profit machine. They are already spending hundreds of millions for targeted advertising, creating an exponential spike in vaping among middle school and high school age children. As regulators try to get ahead of the trend, tobacco companies are falling back on old strategies, claiming that science supports E-cigarettes as a "safe" alternative to smoking.

Consider the following examples of ideas believed by millions despite the scientific community debunking them.

\-- Global warming is a natural climate variation.

\-- More gun access decreases violence.

\-- Most government regulations are an unnecessary overreach.

\-- Taxing the rich slows the economy.

These myths are most often supported by Republicans. A first guess explanation might be that these beliefs benefit the wealthy. This idea is supported by Democratic stereotypes of Republicans. As we have seen with tobacco, it would not be surprising that corporate executives would promote the denigration of science to further their own economic self-interest. But only a small percentage of Republicans are corporate executives or wealthy. How do we explain the large numbers of Republicans who hold these false beliefs?

As I mentioned earlier, economic self-interest is no longer the primary reason behind the choice of political party. The foundation of the red-blue tribal wars has become identity politics. We identify with a particular party because it is aligned with our moral matrix. It just feels right. Once we have identified with one party, cognitive dissonance pushes us to accept the "party line," even if we have to believe myths and "alternative facts" to support our belief system.

For most people, rejecting science is easier than questioning securely held beliefs that have become part of our world view. The next few essays are additional case studies in the dismissal of science. I am a little apprehensive here. If you are a tribal conservative, the essays titled Environmental Protections and Immigration Myths will likely cause significant cognitive dissonance. If you are a tribal liberal, the third essay titled The Gun Safety Debate will probably cause some cognitive dissonance for you. Notice your thought processes as you read. Remember, these reactions are part of our human nature to defend beliefs that align with our value matrix.

If you experience the cognitive dissonance I predict, just think of this as an opportunity to see how open minded you can be when your world view is challenged.

#  Environmental Protections

In the 1960s, American scientists began to warn political leaders that the "greenhouse effect"—heat trapped in the atmosphere by CO2, methane and other gasses—might change the Earth's average temperature and create serious problems. President Johnson even mentioned it in a special message to Congress in 1965—but no action was taken.

A drought set in across the United States in 1987 causing crops to fail, livestock to die, and food prices to rise. The following year (1988) turned out to be one of the hottest and driest years in history. Congress responded by holding hearings. James E. Hanson, Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies testified that global warming had begun. He said the average temperature on Earth was 1 degree warmer than the average from 1950 – 1980. "The probability that this could be explained by natural events was only one percent."

Presidential candidate George H. W. Bush promised to "counter the greenhouse effect with the White House effect." After his election, he proposed a U.S. Global Climate Change Research initiative for the 1990 budget. After twenty-five years of inaction, it seemed politicians might finally be convinced to move on the issue.

Meanwhile, fossil fuel company executives and investors felt threatened by talk of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Any reduction in traditional energy use of coal, oil, and natural gas would reduce their profits. In response, fossil fuel companies took a page right out of the tobacco industry playbook. They contributed funds to the George C Marshall Institute to develop a report attacking climate change science. Dr. Frederick Seitz (from the tobacco wars) and other conservative scientists were hired. They produced a booklet entitled Global Warming: What Does the Science Tell Us? It was distributed around Washington in a series of briefings—to which no real climate scientists were invited. The report blamed the sun, which they said had entered a period of "higher energy output." They also claimed that the 200 year sun cycle was almost over and that a cooler planet could soon be expected. They cherry-picked data to support their claims.

Bush administration officials were impressed by the Marshall Institute briefings and momentum for climate change action disappeared. The institute was proud of its accomplishment writing: "It is generally considered in the scientific community that the Marshall report was responsible for the Administration's opposition to carbon taxes and restrictions on fuel consumption."

Research by real climate scientists continued. By 1994 they had proven the sun could not be the cause of the observed global warming because that would warm the entire atmosphere. Instead, measurements supported the greenhouse effect—the lower atmosphere was warming while the upper atmosphere was cooling. By 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the most respected international organization on climate, reiterated that human activities were indeed causing global warming. By 2001 they reported the evidence was strong and getting stronger. By 2007, they called the evidence "unequivocal."

But the Marshall Institute continued its efforts to create doubt about the science, offering alternative explanations for climate change and even personally attacking scientists who supported the climate change consensus. Conservatives in Congress and the White House were happy to have cover for their policies that prioritized economic growth over environmental protection. The 2006 "Inconvenient Truth" documentary nudged public opinion but did not move the political needle. Conservative talk radio and Fox News persisted in promulgating the idea that climate change science was not strong enough to guide rational public policy.

It is appropriate to mention here that science does not work like political opinion. Yes, scientists often initially disagree as they explore new areas of inquiry. But then the debate ends. Rational arguments and peer review lead to consensus. No scientist debates that the earth revolves around the sun. They do not argue if substances are composed of atoms. The fact that DNA carries genetic information is not controversial. The notion that minority (outlier) opinions in science should be presented in a "balanced" way is a form of informational bias that gives discarded ideas more credence than they deserve.

An analysis found that 88% of news stories continued to give coverage to discredited climate change denial science well after the scientific community had reached consensus on the facts of global warming. Such manipulation of public opinion allowed the United States Senate to vote 97 – 0 to block adoption of the Kyoto Protocol (an early international attempt to deal with climate change) in 1997.

The disinformation campaign funded by the fossil fuel industry continues to this day, allowing President Trump to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord in 2016. Again, this was years after the human impact on global warming was no longer scientifically controversial.

As I gather information for this essay at the beginning of 2019, the U.S. Government has just issued its most dire assessment yet about the potential consequences of climate change. The report was produced by the US Global Change Research Program, a team of over 1,000 people from 13 federal agencies, including 300 leading climate change scientists from both in and out of government. The findings of the 1600 page report include:

  * The global average temperature is much higher and is rising more rapidly than anything modern civilization has experienced—and this warming trend can only be explained by human activities.

  * Without significant reduction in greenhouse gasses, annual average global temperature could increase 9 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century compared with preindustrial temperatures.

  * The economic impact of climate change will include the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars in the United States, perhaps 10% of GDP by the end of the century. The Southeast alone will likely lose over half a billion labor hours by 2100 due to extreme heat.

  * The quantity and quality of crops across the country will decline due to higher temperatures, drought, and flooding. In parts of the Midwest, farms will be able to produce less than 75% of the corn and soybean yields that they produce today.

  * Heat stress will cause dairy production to fall between 0.6 – 1.35% over the next twelve years (already costing the industry 1.2 billion from heat stress in 2010).

  * Ocean acidification will hurt the shellfish industry and damage coral reefs. Red tides and algae blooms that kill sea life and effect tourism will become more frequent.

  * Thousands of preventable deaths will occur due to extreme heat, insect borne illness, fires, and flooding.

  * Wildfires could burn up to six times more forest area annually by 2050.

  * Along the coasts, over $1 trillion in real estate and infrastructure will be threatened by rising sea levels, flooding, and storm surges.

  * Sea levels have risen almost 8 inches since 1900, half of that coming since 1993. Some countries are already seeing significant portions of land underwater.

  * The number of days over 100 degrees Fahrenheit will multiply. Chicago, where such days are historically rare, could start to resemble Phoenix or Las Vegas with up to two months of these scorching-hot days. Blackouts and power failures will become more frequent as energy systems are pushed to their limits.

Research supporting climate change science continues to accumulate. In July of 2019, an article titled "Climate Scientists Drive Stake Through Heart of Skeptics' Argument" detailed two independent studies that measured global temperatures over the last 2,000 years. Both confirm that the rise in global fever over the last century far exceeds anything seen in natural cycles, measuring over 2 degrees Fahrenheit. They conclude that without drastic and immediate response, an additional increase of 5.4 to 9o F is predicted by 2100. Yet, in the face of these scientifically reinforced predictions, most conservatives are still not supportive of actions to mitigate climate change. Since the year 2000, the fossil fuel industry has spent over $2 billion lobbying the government not to take action on climate change.

Just like the big tobacco companies joined forces to defend their economic interest in smoking, the fossil fuel industry has joined forces to resist action on climate change. As electric vehicles have recently increased in popularity, Exxon Mobil, The Koch Family Foundations, and other fossil fuel stakeholders have created front organizations like Fueling US Forward and Energy Equality Coalition to fight against stronger fuel-efficiency standards and the electrification of transportation. They have found friendly ears in the current Republican administration that has recently begun battling California and other states to roll back aggressive fuel efficiency requirements. They have targeted the electric vehicles with campaigns to eliminate tax incentives for EV purchases and even add supplemental fee requirements on them (because they don't pay enough gas taxes).

The different attitudes toward climate change are symptomatic of the divide between conservatives and liberals on a host of environmental issues. Many conservatives believe environmental protections often come at the expense of individual liberty and economic expansion. For example, they argue that Federal lands should be opened up for resource development such as forestry, mining, and drilling. Powerful economic interests support these attitudes. They decry the frequency of lawsuits by environmentalists that they see as obstructionist—stopping worthwhile projects that provide jobs and commercial growth.

Most liberals believe protections are necessary to limit practices that harm everyone's environment. Their value matrix prioritizes the preservation of natural landscapes for the esthetic and recreational use of current and future generations. They believe they are taking a more global and long term perspective and view conservatives as taking a short term economic one. It is easy to see how the conflicting value matrixes produce different priorities.

Republican Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. The modern conservative movement would never have let that happen today. Conservatives now label the EPA as overly restrictive and "job killing." The discrediting of science allows them to reject environmental concerns in favor of economic ones. The conservative belief in hierarchy places humans above nature while the liberal value of fairness includes humans as part of nature. So how do we heal? It will not be easy.

If you believe that the perspective of climate scientists conflicts with your religious or political values, I recommend A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions by Katharine Hayhoe. Dr. Hayhoe is a highly respected climate scientist and a professor at Texas Tech University where she is Director of the Climate Center. She is also an avowed Christian who is married to a pastor. She frequently gives talks on the intersection of faith and climate change. Her TED Talk and many books on the topic are well worth checking out.

Let me conclude this essay with a final dramatic example of the importance of looking to science to inform public policy.

In the 1920s, it was discovered that adding lead (tetraethyl lead) to gasoline significantly improved octane rating. Producers could then use cheaper grades of gasoline in higher compression engines without causing the engine to "knock." General Motors patented the additive under the name Ethyl (avoiding the negative connotation of the word "lead").

Scientists had long known that lead was toxic. Thomas Midgley, a leader in the research division of General Motors working on tetraethyl lead, was even hospitalized with lead poisoning. Yet while still recovering from the incident, he wrote to an oil industry engineer that public poisoning was "almost impossible, as no one will repeatedly get their hands covered in gasoline containing lead."

Production of leaded gasoline began in 1923. Almost immediately, workers at the DuPont manufacturing plant began getting sick from lead poisoning—eight had died by the winter of 1925. In October of 1924, forty-eight workers at a Standard Oil plant were hospitalized due to lead exposure—nine of them eventually died.

This finally prompted a conference by the United States Public Health Service to address the problem of leaded gasoline. Researchers from General Motors testified there was little danger to the public—and there was no alternative to tetraethyl lead if America wanted to keep up with the growing demand for gasoline for motor vehicles. In the end, the Public Health Service allowed leaded gasoline to remain on the market.

In the years that followed, research into the effects of leaded gasoline was heavily funded by the lead industry. Dr. Robert A. Kehoe of the University of Cincinnati, who consulted for the General Motors Research Lab, became the chief promoter of the safety of leaded fuels. He convinced the Surgeon General that lead had a dose-response relationship, meaning it had "no effect" on health below a certain threshold level. His opinion influenced public health policy well into the 1960s. This was despite the fact that in 1943, Harvard Medical School neurologist Randolph Byers found that children with high lead levels had neurological and behavior problems. His research ended when he was threatened with a lawsuit by the lead industry. By the 1970s, 200,000 tons of lead were being added to the atmosphere each year.

Notwithstanding evidence that lead levels in our blood were rising and retarding the neural development of millions of children, the large refiners resisted any ban on lead additives. Finally in 1973, the EPA issued regulations to begin the reduction of lead content in gasoline. It took 3 years of litigation before the phasedown could be implemented. Even then, the Republican Reagan Administration tried to cripple the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to enforce the regulations. Still, from 1976 – 1991, the average level of lead in the blood of Americans decreased by 78%. (Bans on lead in products like paint, pottery, and pipes have also helped.)

From 1927-1987, a total of 68 million children had a toxic exposure to lead from leaded gasoline. By the 1980s, over 5,000 adults died every year from heart disease caused by lead poisoning. The half-life of lead in the body is quite long, staying in the soft tissues for months and the bones for years.

Eventually a bipartisan group in Congress stood up for children against the gasoline industry and lead was completely removed from gas on January 1, 1996. Lead levels in children's blood dropped—a decline credited by some researchers with the rise in IQ levels measured in more recent decades.

A statistically significant correlation has also been found between leaded gasoline usage and violent crime. The violent crime curve virtually tracks the lead exposure curve with a 22 year time lag. Astoundingly, several studies have indicated that up to half of the dramatic drop in US crime rates seen in the 1990's can be credited to the coming of age of children whose brains were not damaged by lead poisoning—which interferes with impulse control. Other industrial chemicals like PCBs (used in electrical equipment and plasticizers), organophosphates (in pesticides), and methyl mercury (from coal burning) may also damage neural development. A card carrying liberal might say that rather than building more prisons, the best way to fight crime may be to give more authority to the EPA!

Of course, this is overly simplistic (and an attempt at humor). Multiple factors have played a role in the reduction of crime in recent decades, including changes in policing, education, poverty, drug use, etc.

Toxic gasoline is not just a story of corporate greed. Psychological factors such as peer pressure and cognitive dissonance have played a role in preventing intelligent people from stopping the health damage of lead in millions— particularly children. Always keep cognitive dissonance in mind when you hear news reports of strident political extremists defending ideas that don't seem reasonable.

In 2011—over half a century too late—the United Nations announced it had been successful in phasing out leaded gasoline worldwide.

#  Immigration Myths

Benjamin Franklin expressed misgivings about the German immigrants to Pennsylvania, complaining that they would never assimilate to the culture and customs established by the English colonists. Today, citizens with German ancestry are America's largest ethnic group (13%). Concerns about immigrants are as old as the country, but are based in social and economic anxiety rather than any characteristic of the immigrant group to which they are directed.

False information about smoking was disseminated by the tobacco industry. False information about climate change is promoted by the fossil fuel industry. It is easy to see the economic self- interest at work in these cases. But who profits from the spread of misinformation about immigrants in America? Politicians.

Myths about recent immigrants are spread to stimulate xenophobia—our innate tendency to defend our group against harm by outsiders. Politicians use fear of the "other" to gain contributions and votes, particularly from those with heightened threat sensitivity. We have made some progress against overt racism, but recent immigrants remain a common target. Myths about immigrants are commonly held.

Myth: Undocumented immigrants are overrunning our country.

Facts: Immigration rates have fluctuated through the decades depending on economic and political circumstances around the world. Recent immigrants make up about 13.5% of the U.S. population today, similar to the time period from 1900-1930, the 1880s, and the 1850's. Seventy-six percent have lawful status. Of the 43.7 million recent immigrants in the country in 2016, 44.7% had already become naturalized citizens. Only 11 million immigrants are undocumented, the lowest since 2004.

Considering just the border with Mexico, unauthorized crossings have declined over the past two decades. Border apprehensions averaged 81,588 per month under President George W. Bush, 34,647 under President Obama, and 24,241 under President Trump

Myth: Undocumented immigrants bring crime and violence.

Facts: Although the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. increased significantly between 1990 and 2010, the violent crime rate plummeted 45% and the property crime rate dropped 42%. Studies have consistently shown that immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans and there is a negative correlation between levels of immigration and crime rates. States with a higher share of undocumented immigrants have lower crime rates than states with smaller shares. As a specific example, between 1990 and 2017, the undocumented immigrant population of New York City tripled from 400,000 to 1.2 million while the number of homicides collapsed from 2,262 to 292.

Myth: Undocumented immigrants take jobs and services without paying taxes.

Facts: According to economics professor Giovanni Peri of UC Davis, "Most economists agree that in spite of being a very big part of the labor force (17%), immigrants have not come at the cost either of American jobs, nor American Wages." Immigrants buy products and services which actually help create jobs in the economy. They are twice as likely to start their own businesses compared to native-born Americans and more likely to hire employees.

Undocumented immigrants nationwide pay an estimated 8% of their income in state and local taxes, which is higher than the tax rate of the top one percent of all taxpayers in the U.S. Undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion a year in taxes. Many studies have shown that immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits like public education and health care. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for benefits such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or food stamps. Even eligible immigrants use 27% fewer benefits relative to U.S. natives of similar incomes and ages.

Immigrants, in fact, are the key to offsetting declining birth rates in the country. If not for immigrants, the U.S. workforce would be shrinking, creating a host of problems including stagnant economic growth and strains on social programs like Social Security and Medicare. In a 2017 report, The National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine summarized by stating that "immigration has an overall positive impact on the long-run economic growth in the U. S."

Myth: Undocumented Immigrants bring diseases.

Facts: There is no evidence to support the claim that immigrants bring disease into the country. Latin America has higher vaccination rates than the United States. (99% for Mexico, 93% for Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, 92% for the U.S.) The vast majority of immigrants arriving in the country are screened for health issues.

This myth is perpetuated by politicians and pundits who are aware of the threat sensitivity of their followers. They are appealing to the increased brain sensitivity to "disgust" that the idea of diseases brings.

Myth: Undocumented Immigrants bring terrorism.

Facts: According to the Department of Homeland Security: "The suggestion that individuals that have ties to ISIL have been apprehended at the southwest border is categorically false, and not supported by any credible intelligence or facts on the ground." There is "no credible information that any member of a terrorist group has traveled through Mexico to gain access to the United States." The vast majority of individuals in this country linked to terror since 2002 are U.S. citizens, most often motivated by hateful white supremacist ideology.

Although these facts about immigration may cause a great deal of cognitive dissonance in those who have a contrary world view, the information is well supported. Secure boarders and orderly immigration policy are not controversial. Contrary to conservative talking points, most liberals do not want open borders. Instead, they advocate for effective border security combined with rational and humane immigration procedures.

The details of immigration policy are a legitimate topic for debate. Unfortunately, some politicians have stymied productive debate by encouraging myths about immigration to their own ends. This is another case where making good policy choices for America is hindered by misinformation, irrational fears, and debunked stereotypes.

America is truly a nation of immigrants, both historically and currently. Our political healing will require us to overcome our natural xenophobia and accept diversity as a central theme of our national story.

Immigration provides a perfect example of the intersection of science and public policy. The Northern Triangle of Central America refers to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. They have been in the news the last few years because "caravans" of migrants from these countries have traveled through Mexico to our southern border hoping to enter the United States. Many of them are seeking asylum due to failed and corrupt governments that put average citizens at risk of gang violence, sexual assault, and a murder rate ten times the global average. Surprisingly, though, violence is not the main reason motivating Central Americans to take on the arduous journey north.

The Northern Triangle is part of what meteorologists call "The Dry Corridor." It has always been an area of low rainfall, but the last decade has seen unprecedented droughts—which have produced massive crop failures. The Unite Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reported that in 2015 up to 75% of corn and bean crops were lost, along with thousands of cattle. By 2016, an estimated 3.5 million people in the region were in need of humanitarian assistance. The dry conditions have also devastated coffee production, an economic necessity for many Central Americans.

The food security crisis has continued for several years. Scientists have directly connected these years of atypical drought to climate change—which exaggerates normal weather patterns. In 2018, the US Customs and Border Protection Agency confirmed that food insecurity was a major factor driving migration from Central America.

When Central Americans are no longer able to feed and provide for their families, many small scale farmers leave the countryside for the cities. But they find few employment opportunities—and a lawless landscape that puts their families in danger. Many then decide they have no choice but to emigrate from their homeland. This two phase process, moving to the city and then out of the country, is so common that it has its own sociological term—step migration.

To help reduce the pressure on our southern border, the United States has sent hundreds of millions of dollars to the Northern Triangle governments in an effort to prevent gang violence. Unfortunately, these efforts will do nothing to ameliorate crop failures and water shortages that are the primary impetus behind step migration. The long term solution is recognition that climate change is the root cause that requires serious international cooperation to moderate. In the short term, investment in water capture and storage systems to preserve the viability of agriculture would be a logical policy.

Ignoring information provided by both scientists and government agencies, in 2019 the Federal Government drastically reduced economic assistance to Central America as a punishment for not stopping their citizens from migrating north. This was a political decision. Instead of financial aid, the U.S. instead sent border enforcement agents to attempt to stop migration at its source. Stopping migration in this way is a lot like trying to stop a leaky water pipe with your bare hands.

#  The Gun Safety Debate

In the wake of several mass shootings in schools, many conservative lawmakers and pundits were suggesting that the answer might be to "arm the teachers" with guns. As a former school teacher, I shuddered. Reflecting back on the faculty at the school where I taught, I can think of few who would have had the temperament and skills to quickly transition from instructor to armed guard. Even if they had training, knowing my fellow teachers were "packing" would have been very unsettling. And what percentage of teachers in the country are facing mental health challenges that could lead to a breakdown—endangering the very students under their protection? I assure you, it is not zero.

Nowhere are the tribes more passionately divided than on the topic of gun regulation. It strikes at the very core of both Republican and Democratic value matrixes. Nothing threatens those on the right more than the possibility of taking away their personal protection—their sense of safety. More than this, due to their enhanced threat sensitivity, conservatives are acutely aware of the forces (foreign and domestic) that would strip them of their freedom if they are not vigilant. On the other side, nothing frustrates those on the left more than the violation of fairness and caring represented by the death and injury of innocents. Gun violence is antithetical to their deepest belief in the positive potential of humankind. It can bring cries of anger and tears of anguish.

Facts rarely get in the way of a gun regulation argument. For example, many conservatives will maintain that our world has become less safe and they need a concealed carry permit to protect their community from violence. Yet in 160 cases of active shooter events from 2000- 2013 studied by the FBI, not one was stopped by a concealed carry holder that was not active duty military or police. (Twenty-one events were stopped by unarmed citizens.) At the same time, states that pass right-to-carry laws see increases in violent crimes of 13-15 percent.

Despite the facts, conservatives immediately feel threatened by any proposed gun regulations. The United States is the only country in the world with the right to keep and bear arms with no constitutional restrictions. Those on the right often see any additional gun regulation proposals as an erosion of this constitutional right. For this reason, they vehemently oppose suggested regulations that others may label as "common sense" measures.

In contrast, the knee jerk reaction among liberals to any mass shooting or homicide statistic is to propose tougher gun safety regulations. After all, they reason, automobile regulations—speed limits, seat belts, air bags, license requirements including driver training and testing—have reduced traffic fatalities by 95% since 1921. Despite the fact that auto accidents still kill as many people as gun violence every year, no one is arguing to take away our cars. Regulations just make them safer. Why wouldn't appropriate gun regulations save lives in a similar way? Depending on how the question is asked, 60-90% of Americans favor stricter gun controls, yet Congress has been paralyzed on the issue.

How do we bridge such a chasm in positions? Let's start with a closer look at gun violence.

Traveling in Estonia, one of our tour group companions was a young man from Singapore. We asked if he had ever visited the United States. His response was an emphatic "NO. I don't want to get shot!" He explained that nearly every TV program and movie he had seen from America contained gun violence. "I will never set foot in America—especially Texas!"

Despite having by far the greatest preponderance of guns of any country in the world, the United States has only a "moderate" homicide rate, largely due to a robust police presence. Here is a small sample of annual gun homicide rates per 100,000 population in some countries:

Japan---------------0.2

Switzerland--------0.5

Norway-------------0.5

Australia-----------0.8

Germany-----------1.0

United Kingdom--1.2

Canada-------------1.8

United States-----5.3

Russia------------- 9.2

Iraq-----------------9.9

Mexico------------24.8

Brazil-------------30.5

S. Africa----------35.9

Honduras--------41.7

Venezuela--------56.3

El Salvador------61.8

The United States has more guns than people, estimated at 1.2 guns per person. Let that sink in. Nearly 400 million guns. This is by far the highest rate of firearms per capita in the world. With only 4% of the world's population, we have over 45.9% of the civilian-owned guns on the planet. About one-third of Americans own guns. This of course means that those who do own guns average 4 weapons each. Two-thirds of gun owners cite personal and family protection as the primary reason. This is in spite of the evidence that many more people are killed by having a gun in the home than are saved by having a gun in the home.

We also have the highest rate of death by firearm of any industrialized country in the world—about 38,000 annually. Since 1970, more Americans have died from gun violence (1.4 million including homicides, suicides and accidents) than in all the wars in American history (1.3 million). How do we make sense of these depressing statistics in order to initiate effective policy reform? Let's start by looking for insights in the policies of other countries for comparison.

Australia is often held up as a good comparison to the United States. Australians are largely immigrants with an independent "wild west" mentality and a tradition of gun ownership. Following the worst mass shooting in Australia's history in 1996 (35 dead), gun regulations were immediately revamped with the National Firearms Agreement. Virtually all assault weapons were banned, supported by a buyback program that removed 650,000 weapons from the country. Lacking the constitutional protections found in the United States, self-defense was eliminated as a valid reason to own a gun. Within 20 years, the odds of being killed by a gun reportedly decreased 72%, with a similar reduction is suicides by firearm. Australia's current .8/100,000 gun homicide rate is one seventh that of the United States. No wonder that liberals often site Australia as an example of what gun regulations can accomplish.

With the exception of a 2018 incident where a farmer killed 6 members of his family, Australia has not had a mass shooting since the NFA was implemented. Supporters of the legislation point to this as success since the elimination of mass shootings was the primary goal.

Unfortunately, the Australian model may be less helpful in reducing overall gun violence in America than liberals have touted. A 2015 study that reanalyzed the data (Stuart Gilmour – American Journal of Public Health) found that gun violence was already declining before the NFA—something not taken into account in earlier reports. Gilmour's detailed analysis of data shows that NFA "likely had a negligible effect on both firearm suicides and homicides in Australia and may not have as large an effect in the United States as some gun control advocates expect. To achieve real, sustained reductions in the majority of causes of firearm-related mortality, the United States needs a broader, more comprehensive range of gun control measures than those in the NFA." The problem, of course, is that changes in American gun regulations similar to those in the NFA are unlikely at best—and tougher standards are a non-starter..

The United Kingdom is frequently referenced in gun control discussions. Gun related tragedies in Britain and Scotland produced bans on most firearms including handguns and semiautomatic weapons. Like Australia, the UK also had a successful firearm buyback program. Today, the United Kingdom has an average of less than four guns per 100 people compared to the 120 guns per 100 people in the United States. As a result, most British police do not routinely carry guns. It took a while for gun related crimes to decrease after the 1997 Firearms Act, but today the gun homicide rate is one fourth that in the U.S. (1.2/100,000) There has only been one mass shooting (12 killed in 2010) since the bans took effect. Again, it is unclear if these reductions in violence are part of a longer trend that would have happened anyway. And Americans—especially the politicians—probably would not support the U.K. model anytime soon.

Germany is an interesting case, having the 15th highest gun ownership rate in the world, but also having one of the lower per capita yearly homicide rates (1.0/100,000). Anyone under 25 years old who applies for a gun license must undergo a psychiatric evaluation that includes personality and anger management tests. Any gun owner may be called in for testing if they display behavior such as drunk driving, domestic violence, or certain other crimes. All inherited guns must be fitted with a blocking mechanism that makes them unusable. Records of gun ownership are kept to make it difficult to own multiple guns. It is unlikely these restrictions would be palatable to a majority of Americans.

Switzerland has the third highest ratio of guns per capita, trailing only the United States and Yemen. Yet it has a remarkably low homicide rate of .5/100,000, and it hasn't seen a mass shooting since 2001 (14). With what Americans call a "Red Flag Law," the Swiss government encourages professionals like mental health providers to report individuals who may pose a danger of committing gun violence. Anyone who has alcohol or drug problems, is convicted of a crime, or has a "violent or dangerous attitude" is not allowed to own a gun.

All young people in Switzerland learn to shoot and safely handle weapons since military service is mandatory. Although many Swiss keep weapons in their home after their military service, it is illegal to carry guns in the streets or transport a loaded gun. In this case, it is clear that cultural traditions combine with strong gun safety laws to reduce gun violence.

Like Switzerland, Israel requires military service of all citizens at the age of 18. Training in gun use and safety is nearly universal. Living in a danger zone for terrorism, most citizens carry or have access to guns for protection as part of everyday life. Yet the homicide rate by gun is low (1.3/100,000). Like Switzerland, cultural traditions around firearms support the existing gun control laws and responsible behavior.

Japan exemplifies the perfect case in support of gun control regulations. Citizens who want to own a gun must first take an all-day gun safety course and pass a written exam. They must then score at least 95% on a marksmanship test. A rigorous background check is required which includes: criminal record, prescription and illegal drug use, and mental health screening. The buyer's relatives and coworkers are checked for links to extremist groups. If the gun purchase is allowed, yearly inspections are required which detail how guns and ammunition are stored. For every bullet purchased, a bullet casing must be returned to the store.

Japanese police are required to become black belts in judo and spend more time practicing kendo (bamboo swords) than handling firearms. Nationwide, Japanese police fired only 6 shots in 2015. Some argue Japan benefits from a culture that abhors violence, especially since World War II. There is a stigma in Japan that guns are undesirable. As a result, the gun homicide rate is only .2/100,000.

Norway has about one tenth the gun homicide rate (.5/100,000) as the United States. Norway averages 1 fatal shooting by police per year while the US police officers average over 1,000 fatal shootings of citizens per year. Sociologists like Gummi Oddsson of Northern Michigan State University have found that Nordic governments go to great lengths to build trust between police and community members. Community policing builds a partnership between law enforcement and citizens that helps to insure a peaceful society.

In addition to fairly strict gun regulations, Japan, Switzerland, Israel, and Norway all have another significant advantage over the US in reducing gun violence. They all have racially and culturally homogeneous societies. Social cohesion between citizens goes a long way toward reducing the conflicts leading to gun violence. Less diverse populations experience less xenophobia. Less economic disparity produces lower crime rates and thus little need for protection by guns.

When it comes to reducing gun violence, the United States clearly has several factors working against it:

\-- Our constitution protects—and cultural traditions in some regions promote—gun ownership.

\-- We will always be a racially and culturally diverse nation.

\-- Economic inequality creates pockets of poverty in many urban and rural areas.

Thus, no other country can provide us with a perfect model of gun restriction laws. Our solutions will have to be as unique as our country.

You might say that America performed its own gun control experiment in the 1990s. In 1993 congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The bill was named after James Brady, Ronald Reagan's press secretary who was badly wounded in a presidential assassination attempt in 1981. In its final form, the act required "instant" background checks and a three day waiting period for all gun purchases. Thirty-two states had to change their laws to come into conformity, while eighteen states were already in compliance. This set up a natural experiment of "treatment" states that increased restrictions and "control" states that kept restrictions the same.

According to a study by Phillip J. Cook, Duke University professor of public policy, economics' and sociology, "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure. Control and treatment states had the same gun homicide rates before and after the Brady law passed. It made no discernable difference."

This may be a case where liberals need to accept the science—even though it might cause some cognitive dissonance. Dr. Cook does acknowledge a "gaping barn door" of unregulated sales due to loopholes that perhaps limited the law's effectiveness. (Twenty-two percent of guns today are purchased without a background check.) On the plus side, the study found that the Brady Bill may have been responsible for a slight reduction in the firearm suicide rates for persons aged 55 years or older.

The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) was in effect for ten years, expiring in 2004 due to a "sunset" clause. It banned the manufacture, transfer or possession of semi-automatic assault weapons. Again, a 2017 review found that the ban did not have a significant effect on firearm homicides.

It did have a political effect. The gun restrictions imposed by Bill Clinton and his Democratic Congress energized the Republican base and the National Rifle Association. Republicans swept the 1994 mid-term elections. Even after the Columbine High School Massacre of 1999, no significant gun control legislation has passed the Congress in the last 20 years. During that time over 1100 people have been killed in mass shootings and almost a quarter million gun homicides have been recorded.

The United States has inadvertently performed another experiment that offers more clarity. As long as they do not interfere with the constitutional right to own guns, individual states are allowed to pass gun safety laws that exceed federal standards. California, for example, has the strictest gun regulations of any state. Even with a very diverse population and pockets of poverty, it has less gun violence than all but six states in the country.

Although not a perfect correlation, states with the strongest gun regulations generally have the lowest rates of gun violence according to the Annual Gun Law Scorecard by the Giffords Law Center. The twenty states with the strongest gun laws (as ranked by a panel of attorneys) almost all have gun death rates below or well below the national average. Conversely, of the thirty states with the weakest laws—often just the federal mandates—all but two rank above or well above the national average for gun violence incidents. This may be the strongest evidence we have for the benefit of quality gun regulations compatible with the Second Amendment.

Gun violence is a multifaceted sociological and psychological issue. We cannot expect simple solutions to remedy this complex problem. What about other options in addition to sensible gun safety regulations?

Northeastern University Professor of Criminology James Alan Fox and Harvard Kennedy School of Government Research Fellow Thomas Abt are not "pro-gun." But they argue the case that common gun control proposals such as universal background checks and semi-automatic weapons bans are unlikely to significantly lower shooting incidents. They lament that politicians do not focus on the most solvable issue: shootings on our city streets. Urban violence accounts for the overwhelming majority of homicides in the United States.

Fox and Abt contend that the primary factor behind these homicides is not weak gun control laws. Instead, they put the blame on pockets of socioeconomic distress. "Violent crime clusters among a few hundred individuals and a few hotspots. Less than 1 percent of a city's population and less than 5% of its geography will generate the majority of its lethal or near-lethal encounters." They suggest we look for preventive solutions to these crimes rather than focus on mass shootings because mass shootings account for less than 1% of annual homicides.

Michael Sierra-Arevalo, an Assistant Professor at Rutgers University, echoes the findings in this research. He found that in Boston between the mid-1990s and mid-2000s, more than half of all murders, more than three-quarters of all youth homicides, and 70% of all shootings were perpetrated by 1% of youth between ages 15 and 24. He also noted that 70% of all shootings in Chicago are located in a social network of less than 6% of the city's population.

So what can we conclude?

  * The uniquely American constitutional protection of gun-ownership will require multidimensional solutions in the search for reduced levels of gun violence.

  * Stricter gun safety regulations do make a difference, as demonstrated in the relationship between state laws and rates of gun violence. As in the most successful cases internationally, cultural agreement will be required to support robust gun safety regulations.

  * The Australian experience and our own Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban "experiments" tell us that the impact of gun regulations alone may be less dramatic than we would hope.

  * Allowing "loopholes" and exceptions largely defeats any positive gains of even well intentioned gun legislation.

  * The most effective gun safety regulations include a mental health component which seeks to eliminate gun ownership by those with violent and antisocial tendencies (Red Flag Laws).

  * Countries with less diverse populations (Japan, Israel, Switzerland, Norway) have less gun violence issues because of natural cohesion. We need to foster this sense of community in our diverse country.

  * Socioeconomic problems cannot be ignored in the discussion. Gun violence in this country is most often a reaction to poverty and hopelessness. Economically uplifting American neighborhoods that are the "hot spots" for gun violence may be much more effective than additional gun regulations.

I noted that legislation regarding tobacco smoking, climate change, and immigration policies have all been hindered by special interests with deep pockets and outsized influence. Gun safety regulations are another example. The National Rifle Association was founded in 1871 to advance rifle marksmanship and firearm safety. Since 1934 it has kept members informed about firearm-related legislation, evolving in the 1970s into a gun rights advocacy group. Today they oppose almost all gun regulation in the name of defending the rights of Americans to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

With nearly five million members and annual revenue of over $400 million, the NRA is considered one of the top three lobbying groups in Washington. Their CEO, Wayne LaPierre, was paid $5.1 million in total compensation in 2015. Since 1998, the NRA has spent over $203 million on political activities and lobbying to oppose gun regulation. During the same time period, organizations that support gun safety legislation were able to spend about $6 million. This is a classic example of how the naturally heightened threat sensitivity in some individuals can be milked for political and economic gain. Although most of the donations to the NRA come from citizens in response to frightening solicitations, gun manufacturers and retailers also contribute tens of millions of dollars to their efforts.

The common conservative argument that "stopping a bad guy with a gun requires a good guy with a gun" is not satisfying to liberals who are devastated by ceaseless reports of gun violence and deaths. The liberal argument that gun safety regulation is the only way forward is not satisfying to conservatives who immediately fear that any loss of gun rights leads to a "slippery slope" of gun confiscation and the erosion of Constitutional guarantees.

Reducing gun violence is possible. What is necessary is the will to examine and implement gun safety proposals on their merit, leaving extreme ideological positions—both right and left—out of the discussions.

************

As I forecast earlier, the previous three essays that apply science to political policy may have caused cognitive dissonance in some readers. My goal here was not to advocate for conservative or liberal ideology, but to advocate for science.

At the very least, I hope I have provided some food for thought and a starting point for dialogue.

#  The Case for Pessimism

Human Nature

You may have seen video of an ape gently searching through the hair of another troop member, removing dirt, insects, parasites, etc. Scientists call this grooming. Primates often take turns grooming each other for mutual benefit. The behavior provides clear physical advantages for survival and thus has been promoted by evolution—by making it pleasurable.

Researchers often refer to it as social grooming because the benefits are far more than physical. It fosters communal ties and group cohesion. Members lower on the social hierarchy often groom superiors in an attempt to gain favor and increase their status. Grooming stimulates bonding and cooperation critical to primate success. It is also sooths anxieties and de-escalates tensions between individuals.

Verbal communication in ancestral humans had the obvious benefit of allowing the sharing of knowledge about food sources, water access, the location of predators, etc. But when we talk with people, we are doing much more than communicating information. We are defining our relationship with the other person, affirming our connection, and maintaining the relationship status that might benefit us in the future.

The ability to use language in conversation evolved as a form of "grooming at a distance" in humans, eliciting the same gratifying responses we observe in other primates during social grooming. Some scientists speculate that the bonding aspect of conversation was even more important to early human success than the transfer of information. Along with food and sex, social recognition evolved as a major source of pleasure for Homo sapiens. We crave acceptance and strive to maintain our status among peers.

Lacking the strength and speed of other animals, early humans depended on cooperation among members to secure resources and provide protection from predators and competitors. These drives that helped our forerunners successfully survive and reproduce are also the underpinnings of a pessimistic vision of the future of tribal politics. Identity politics is supported by our innate desire to be accepted by others in our group—in this case, our political tribe.

I am a natural optimist, but it is difficult to be optimistic when the requirement for hope depends on overcoming human nature. Fighting basic instincts is usually a losing proposition. (Just ask those who try to prevent pregnancy through abstinence.) Our innate drive to release neurotransmitters of pleasure through social recognition may be insurmountable. This drive often produces blind loyalty to our political tribe.

We have to ask questions like:

\-- Can we consciously overcome our human nature that causes us to crave the social recognition of group membership?

\-- Can we fend off the resulting peer pressure that pushes us to accept political dogma on an all or nothing basis?

\-- Can we deprive ourselves of the pleasurable dopamine releases that occur when we hear information supporting our political bias?

\-- Can we tolerate the discomfort of cognitive dissonance generated when we reconsider long held beliefs?

I am not sure.

Political Pressure

Since the ideological "purification" of political parties in the 1990s, almost all major legislation in Washington has been adopted along partisan lines. This has largely been because politicians who dare to compromise from the official party position are marked for replacement by powerful lobbies.

As one example, Grover Norquist heads an organization called Americans for Tax Reform that opposes ALL tax increases. He asks members of Congress to sign a "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" promising they will not vote for any new taxes. Legislators who violate the pledge or will not sign the pledge are targeted for removal from office. As a result, 95% of all Republican members of Congress signed the pledge before the 2012 election.

While perhaps less overt, The Sierra Club and other well-funded environmental organizations put similar pressures on Democrats in support of their agenda. Economic self-interest and the desire to maintain power push politicians of both stripes to toe the party line. This level of political pressures does not bode well for the healing of tribal politics.

Foreign Intervention

A 2016 study of 938 global elections between 1946 and 2000 by Dr. Dov H. Levin (Institute for Politics and Strategy, Carnegie-Mellon University) determined that the United States had involved itself in 86 foreign elections and Russia (Soviet Union) had intervened in 36. Electoral intervention by either country increased the average vote share of the preferred candidate by an average of 3%. This represents an effect large enough to have potentially changed the result of seven out of fourteen U.S. presidential elections since 1960. A follow up study in 2018 found that "in many cases" the foreign interventions actually determined the winner. We are still waiting for a final analysis of the effect of foreign interference in our 2016 and 2020 elections.

I was surprised when I became aware of election interference by the United States. I assumed it was only the province of authoritarian governments like Russia, Iran, or North Korea. In stark contrast to our democratic ideals, the CIA helped overthrow elected leaders in Iran and Guatemala in the 1950s and backed violent coups in several countries during the 1960s. It has plotted assassinations and supported brutal anti-communist governments around the world. To be fair, recent decades have seen American interventions mostly aimed at helping non-authoritarian candidates and the rise of democracy. Russia, on the other hand, has endeavored to disrupt democracy and promote authoritarian rule—including here in the U.S.

Michael Tomz, Professor of Political Science at Stanford University, performed an unsettling experiment. A large sample of the American public was asked to read an account of foreign meddling in one of our elections. Participants were randomly assigned vignettes where the meddling either helped their political party of choice or hurt their party of choice. Instead of universal rejection of election interference as bad for our democracy, what emerged was a partisan double standard. "Both Republicans and Democrats were far more likely to condemn foreign involvement, lose faith in democracy, and support retaliation when the foreign power sided with the opposition, than when a foreign power aided their own party."

The experiment found that modest forms of electoral intervention were still judged by study participants to be demoralizing and divisive. Yet, even such active measures as funding, defamation, and hacking did not elicit calls among those same participants for harsh retaliation. "These findings suggest that electoral interference can be an effective offensive tool, one that sows public discord and erodes faith in democracy without running the retaliatory risks associated with conventional military intervention." Our foreign adversaries came to this conclusion long before Dr. Tomz.

Why do these findings support pessimism? We have enough push for political division from mass media and corporations because it supports economic agendas. Adding foreign intervention to the mix only makes the fight for healing more difficult, especially when it apparently does not generate strong indignation from the American electorate.

We will have to steel ourselves to the notion that foreign interference in our elections is unacceptable, whether it benefits our party of choice or not. We will have to create consensus that defending our commonalities is more important than promoting our political differences.

In his Farewell Address, George Washington expressed pessimism on this very point. He predicted that the intractable battles between political parties would make the United States vulnerable to foreign meddling:

[Political party conflict] distracts the public councils and enfeebles public Administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles animosity of one part against another, and foments occasional riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

Despotism

I have held President George Washington in high regard ever since elementary school when I learned about his honesty, integrity, and courageous leadership. Who can resist someone who came clean to his parents about his vandalism with an axe? (The cherry tree story is, of course, a myth. It first appeared in a flattering biography written by Mason Locke in 1806.)

In researching for this book, my admiration for the "Father of Our Country" has grown well beyond the cherry tree myth. His astute political awareness is again on display in another excerpt from his Farewell Address. In this case, he is forecasting the potential for a democracy-threatening consequence of political tribalism:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissention, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purpose of his own elevation, on the ruin of public liberty.

One of the most serious threats of tribal politics is the potential for one tribe to refuse to surrender to the other in a peaceful transfer of power. When relations between the right and left deteriorate from disagreement and distrust to contempt and hatred, a seizure of power against the will of the electoral majority is not unthinkable. Justification for such an event by the controlling party would undoubtedly be supported by misinformation, lies, and conspiracy theories. It is distressing to contemplate.

#  The Case for Optimism

Trend Lines

As a world, we have our serious problems. Nuclear weapons come to mind. Authoritarian dictators come to mind. Overpopulation and poverty come to mind. Climate change and species extinction come to mind. Wars come to mind.

We have work to do.

Yet, there is a case to be made that many long term trend lines are moving in the right direction. You might not know this because bad news "sells" better than good news. Author Steven Pinker has championed the effort to look for the positive trends in his books The Better Angels of Our Nature and Enlightenment Now.

Consider our natural environment:

In May of 2019, a comprehensive report on extinction rates was issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. It states that over 1,000,000 species are threatened with extinction with rates increasing due to climate change and loss of habitat. This is beyond tragic—because extinction is forever. "The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundation of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health, and quality of life worldwide."

There may not seem to be a silver lining to this cloud. Yet on the positive side, the number of protected habitats around the world has grown from 10,000 in 1970 to over 100,000 today. Nations of the world have committed to extend protection to over 17% of all terrestrial habitats by 2020. It is not too late to reverse the disastrous trend of extinction with an international effort against climate change and for habitat preservation.

We can point to an environmental success story for hope. Ozone depletion in the atmosphere that reached crisis levels in the 1980s can serve as a model of environmental stewardship. In 1987, every United Nation's country signed the agreement to phase out the use of CFC's—chemicals that were destroying the ozone layer. Within 20 years, ozone depletion was reversed. On Oct. 23, 2019, scientists announced that the hole in the ozone layer near the South Pole had shrunk to the smallest size since the CFC ban. They predict complete restoration of the vital ozone layer in the next 30 years.

The reduction of greenhouse gasses will be more challenging, but no less achievable. The cost of wind and solar energy is coming down so rapidly that it is no longer unrealistic to talk about a world completely powered by renewable energy. Our oil reserves may then be saved for use in the manufacture of the myriad of products based on them—and not burned as an energy source that produces greenhouse gasses.

Consider human violence:

The worldwide rate of death from war has gone down from 300/100,000 during WWII; to 30/100,000 during the Korean War; to 13/100,000 during the Vietnam War; to 5/100,000 at the end of the 20th century; to less than 1/100,000 in the twenty-first century. Even if you count terrorism, humans are less likely to die in war today than at any time in human history.

The average number of international wars fought every year has declined from over six in the 1950s to less than one in the 2000s. From the 1990s, the deadliest conflicts (those that killed over 1000 people per year) have declined by more than half. Battle deaths have also declined. In 1950, the annual rate of war dead was approximately 240/million of the world's population. By 2007, it was less than 10/million. To repeat, statistics tell us we are living in the most peaceful age humankind has ever known.

War is responsible for only one out of every ten violent deaths. The majority of the rest are the result of suicides and homicides. There has been a dramatic decline in murder rates over the centuries. Europe provides the most reliable statistics. In the 13th century, homicide accounted for about 60/100,000 European deaths. By the end of the 20th century, rates had dropped to about 2/100,000. The U.S. rate today is 5/ 100,000, down from a peak of 10 in 1980. Overall, violent crimes have declined in the U.S. from a peak of 758/100,000 in early 1991 to 387/100,000 in 2012—nearly a 50% decline.

Despite the horrific tragedies that have too frequently been in the headlines, the past 25 years have seen a dramatic drop in violent crimes on school campuses. In 1993, there were 42 student homicides per 100,000 students in the U.S. After years of steady decline, that number was 4 per 100,000 in 2010. To highlight another form of violence, between 1973 and 2008, the incidence of rape in the U.S. has declined over 80%.

Many Americans list terrorism as their number one fear. Yet we are more likely to die from a lightning strike, a deer encounter, a bee sting, or our pajamas catching on fire, than at the hands of a terrorist. How many more lives could have been saved if we had taken some of the 1 trillion dollars spent on homeland security since 9/11 and used it for lightning rods, dear fencing, EpiPens, or pajama safety education? (Yes, an attempt at humor—but you get the idea.)

Consider health and longevity:

According to the World Health Organization, between 1990 and 2013, mortality rates for children under age five declined worldwide by nearly 50%, largely due to improved nutrition and vaccination programs. Polio has been 99% eradicated from the face of the earth. It will soon join smallpox on the list of completely eliminated diseases. Distribution of mosquito nets and insect repellents, draining standing water, and spraying of insecticides has reduced the worldwide rates of malaria by 37% between 2000 and 2015. The spread of HIV has been reversed with 2.1 million new cases in 2013, down from 3.4 million in 2001. And today as I write this (August 2019), it was announced that scientists have found a cure for Ebola.

In 1990, 24% of the world's population did not have access to safe drinking water. By 2010, that figure had dropped to 11%. Average life expectancy around the world has gone from 47 years in 1950 to 70 years in 2011. Extreme poverty ($1.25/day) has dropped from 40% of the world's population in 1981 to 14% in 2010.

If we can manage to spread the good news about positive long-term trends, we might reduce the fearfulness that drives some to political extremism.

American Resilience

Our nation was severely divided in the late 1960s to early 1970s by the Vietnam War. In 1965, 60% of Americans supported sending US troops to Asia to "stop the spread of communism." By 1968, after years of coverage of the carnage on the evening news, 54% of Americans believed it was a mistake. Many households and work places were divided over the issue. Millions, particularly college students, took to the streets in protest against the war. Thousands were arrested and many were injured—even killed—by police or National Guard troops. Some militant protestors caused property destruction, injury, and death as well. The politics of the time was deeply divided and angry. When the war was finally brought to an end, the nation healed. This is resilience.

No level of political divisiveness can match that of the Civil War. Americans killed each other for four years over political differences—producing a total of over 620,000 dead. This is almost as many deaths as in all other American wars combined. Yet somehow we eventually, haltingly, managed to heal as a nation. This is resilience.

Political extremism in America is not a new phenomenon. Periods of destructive partisanship have cycled through our country since its founding. In his essay, The Failure of America's Political System—Understanding Hyper-Partisanship, Michael Lewis expresses it well. "Extremism, like wildfires or plagues, eventually burns out and is replaced by periods of rebuilding and new growth."

Through war, depression, and political turmoil, America has found the strength to sustain its experiment in representative democracy and personal freedom. This gives me hope that our current partisan divide can be overcome.

The Awakening Majority

It is easy to find research that demonstrates the increasing polarization of our current tribal politics. As just one example, a Pew Research Center report found:

  * 41% of Democrats view Republicans as a threat to America's well-being, while 45% of Republicans feel the same way about Democrats. This is up from single digits just a few decades ago.

  * If you take any middle ground policy statement, 92% of Republicans on average will stand to the right of it and 94% of Democrats will stand to the left of it.

  * Over the past 20 years, Democrats on average have become 30% more liberal while Republicans have become 23% more conservative.

  * In 1960, only 5% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats said they would be displeased if their son or daughter married somebody with the opposite party affiliation. By 2016, it was 63% of Republicans and 60% of Democrats.

Those at the extremes of the political spectrum are becoming increasingly entrenched in their beliefs. If a majority of citizens are camped at the extremes, it would not create optimism for national healing.

A more nuanced report called The Hidden Tribes of America (published by More in Common in 2018) offers some much needed hope. Rather than asking people to slap themselves with a political label, the researchers asked detailed questions about the views and values of 8,000 representative Americans. This survey revealed individuals' core beliefs which, it turns out, fell into seven broad categories. On the left were progressive activists (8%) and traditional liberals (11%). On the right were conservative activists (6%) and traditional conservatives (19%). But this means that more than half of the electorate fell into categories of political moderation (or disengagement). The study calls them the "exhausted majority." I prefer to call them the Awakening Majority.

I use the term Awakening Majority to expresses my optimistic view that an increasing number of citizens are becoming aware of the dangers of political tribalism. Believing in centrist policies rather than extremism, they are not widely represented on TV, radio, or other media yet. They support efforts to end the war between the red and blue political tribes. The average American tends to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, not an exact match for either political party. These voters may eventually move the parties more to the middle—or even spur the creation of a viable third party.

The ideas presented in this book may not sway extreme tribal conservatives or extreme tribal liberals because they are so invested in their world view. Since 1976, however, Gallop polls have found more Americans—over 40%— identify as moderate than identify as either conservative or liberal. If you combine these moderates with free-thinking conservatives and free-thinking liberals who see the need for change, you have a plurality of voters.

When you survey the electorate on a variety of policy issues such as health insurance, welfare, defense spending, taxation, and government regulations, centrist positions are by far the most commonly reported. Extreme views are much less common. The reason we seems so divided is because of the loud voices on each end of the spectrum. Those who espouse extreme views are sometimes referred to as the political class—politicians, donors, activists, and partisan commentators. Although they represent less than 15% of the population, their views monopolize airtime and social media.

Most of us are fed up with tribalism and want to see movement toward the mutual good faith and collaborative spirit that characterize a healthy democracy. Seventy-seven percent of us agree that "The differences between Americans are not so big that we cannot come together." This is reason for optimism.

Our best hope is to motivate moderates, free-thinking conservatives, and free-thinking liberals—the Awakening Majority—to express their desire for an end to partisan gridlock. This can be done dramatically in protest rallies or quietly in conversations with family, friends, and neighbors. Most importantly, it can be done by voting.

We don't need to convert the tribal conservatives and tribal liberals to claim success. All we need is a critical mass—reaching what Malcolm Gladwell called The Tipping Point. If we enlist enough "Connectors" (those with large social networks), "Salesmen" (energetic idea boosters), and Mavens (word of mouth leaders and influencers), we can create the cultural transformation we need.

Such shifts usually gain momentum slowly until the tipping point is reached—which is then followed by dramatic change. For example, in 1958 only 4% of Americans approved of interracial marriage. Today that number is 87%. As recently as 2004, only 40% of Americans supported gay marriage and it was legal in only one state. In 2019, 63% favor it and it has become the law of the land. The history of this kind of dramatic change heartens our optimism.

If the Awakening Majority can establish a positive trend toward healing the political divide, peer pressure may expand and perpetuate it. This is when human nature may be on the side of healing. For example, who could have predicted fifty years ago that dog owners would one day be carrying around little plastic bags and picking up their dog's droppings with such conscientiousness? Those who are not conscientious about this duty (yes, I said it) are easily confronted today because we have the weight of social agreement backing us up.

Once society reaches consensus on what is acceptable behavior, it is easy to put the strength of law behind enforcement. I remember bouncing around in the back of my parents' station wagon when I was small enough to lay down there on long trips. No parent today would think of transporting an infant or young child in an automobile without the protection of a child restraint system. We have backed up our societal consensus with laws on the books to enforce our shared belief in this safety mandate.

In another example, fifty years ago my brother was killed by a drunk who was driving on the wrong side of the road. Relatively unhurt, the drunk driver spent a night sobering up in jail and was then released with a fine. In those days, intoxicated people were often excused as not being responsible for their actions. Only after Mothers Against Drunk Driving began lobbying for stricter laws in 1980 did change occur. New laws and enforcement tools have reduced impaired driving fatalities by 52% since then.

Today, we have all reached consensus that drunk driving is completely unacceptable and deserves serious consequences. Young people are more likely than ever to protect themselves and their friends by having a designated driver or calling for a ride, rather than allowing anyone to get behind the wheel when they are intoxicated. Those who still choose to drive drunk are arrested and punished severely as an expression of society's consensus.

These examples of cultural change support optimism for the healing of tribal political antagonism. It also helps to recognize that we don't need to reach everybody. We only need a consensus of the majority that our political divide is harming our country.

Research indicates that factions of a group can be united when they perceive an overriding objective—what scientists call a superordinate goal. War is an example of a superordinate goal that can unite a country. Witness the reaction of many subgroups in America to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 or the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001. Of course, war is not the recommended solution to our current political divisions. But if enough people perceive that political tribalism is a threat to our nation, healing could become a superordinate goal that bridges our political divide.

#  How Do We Heal?

Ralph Waldo Emerson observed: The two parties which divide the state, the party of conservatism and that of innovation, are very ole, and have disputed the possession of the world ever since it was made. Such an irreconcilable antagonism, of course, must have a correspondent depth of seat in the human condition.

Conservative and liberal political perspectives are historic and ongoing. They are derived from our human nature. Heredity and experience mold the pillars of our moral matrix, slanting our political ideology to the right or left. Rational argument will not eliminate the existence of this dichotomy.

Political philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote: A party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life.

Both conservative and liberal ideas are essential to successfully steering the ship of state. Recognition of this is vital to the goal of healing our self-imposed political wounds. As long as either political tribe feels unheard or disenfranchised, they will fight in protest, immobilizing government and stagnating progress. Both tribes must value the perspective that the other tribe brings to the discussion.

Philosopher Bertrand Russell noted: Social cohesion is a necessity. Every community is exposed to two opposite dangers: ossification through too much discipline and reverence for tradition, on the one hand; on the other hand, dissolution or subjugation to foreign conquest, through the growth of an individualism and personal independence that makes cooperation impossible.

Both sides of the political divide have important contributions to make to the future of America. The conservative emphasis on laws and institutions support democracy by helping to maintain social order. The liberal concerns about ensuring the rights of weaker members of society help prevent a slide away from democracy toward authoritarianism. The differing values of each group provide a balancing awareness and a complementary wisdom that are both necessary for our continued success as a nation

Partisanship is like vitamins for democracy—small amounts are necessary for health, but an excess can be unhealthy—even toxic. Our extreme partisanship is now making our democracy sick. We are not functioning well.

We have crossed a dangerous line between interest-group politics and identity politics. With interest-group politics, party members vie for their portion of the economic pie and the implementation of their preferred social policies. Everyone understands there are no permanent winners, just swings of the political pendulum. By contrast, with identity politics, we frame disagreements as a battle between good and evil. There can be no compromise with those who are evil—those who do not understand what America is "really all about." We are emotionally invested in the battle at a much deeper level. Today, partisan identity overlaps cultural identity, religious identity, and racial identity.

When partisans view each other as evil or dangerous; when our identity is linked to political stereotypes; when every disagreement over policy becomes a win-lose clash; then there can be no reasoned negotiations over ideas. There can only be savage battles between team loyalists. As political scientist Lilliana Mason argues, "The angrier the electorate, the less capable we are of finding common ground on policies, or even treating our opponents like human beings."

I don't want to live in a country where I have to select my friends based on political affiliation. I don't want to live in a country where I select my retail store or restaurant based on the politics of the owner. I don't want to live in a country where partisan confrontation becomes increasingly ugly—maybe even violent.

I don't think I am being an alarmist when I declare the following: If we allow the war between political tribes to continue escalating, we run the risk of losing our country. It could happen when one tribe feels disenfranchised and takes to the streets. It could happen when a defeated candidate refuses to accept the outcome of an election. It could happen when partisan differences completely paralyze government.

Even in the absence of such draconian outcomes, constant conflict and gridlock weaken America. Seeing opportunity, our totalitarian enemies are working to foment our national discord by co-opting social media. We must find the wisdom and courage to put the success of the United States above the success of our political party.

If conservatives win the tribal war, we could lose our vitality and innovation. A country that is not evolving will not stay competitive in today's global environment. If the clamor for social and economic justice is resisted too rigidly, it could lead to massive protests or even insurrection. The best future for America requires movement away from artificial hierarchies based on wealth, race, gender or background.

If liberals win the tribal war, the country could lose stability and tradition. Rapid change can lead to mistakes and unforeseen consequences. We have seen the consequences in authoritarian countries when government tries to make everybody economically equal by controlling all aspects of society. If progressive expectations give rise to some extreme form of socialism, we sacrifice the American values of individual initiative and personal responsibility.

Some segments of our society benefit from tribal warfare. They support extreme ideologies because it provides them with power and economic gain. If the rest of us realize we are being offered a false choice—that our options are not just conservative or liberal stances on every issue—then compromise and healing are possible. If we all agree that coexistence between the political tribes is the only viable option for the future of the United States, we must each come to the table to be part of the peace process.

For those who support national healing, I offer the following guidelines as a framework for personal action. Be mindful that:

  * Good governance requires both conservative and liberal perspectives.

  * Political differences are based on value differences—part of human nature.

  * Members of the other tribe deserve to be treated with respect.

  * Compromise is not a four letter word.

  * Fact is not a four letter word. (Just joking. My warped sense of humor rises again.)

Right now, the political tribes are like two boxers standing in the middle of the ring punching each other in the face. We need to become more like two tennis players—respecting the opponent, competing with good sportsmanship, and shaking hands over the net at the end of a match.

In the final essay of this book, I am going to propose something radical—personal moderation and restraint. This will not resonate with those for whom partisan anger has become a dopamine releasing drug of choice. But for those of us in the Awakening Majority, those of us who understand the toll that partisan extremism is taking on our country, this will resonate. These simple ideas represent the answer to the question, "What can I do to make things better?

#  Practical Steps

The very premise of this book is based on a big assumption—that a majority of Americans want to heal the political divide. We can think of reasons why this may be an erroneous belief. For example, some of us are economically invested in the tribal wars—media moguls, pundits, lobbyists, and political operatives just to name a few. Some big corporations support the status quo because they can use our political divisions to stymie regulatory legislation that might decrease profits.

But the largest hindrance to political healing is personal identity. For many of us, our political affiliation is central to our self-image. Additionally, our friends and family often share our political identity. This supports our world view and satisfies our need for belonging. And finally, we all have pleasure circuits that offer us rewards as we listen to information that confirms the "superiority" of our tribe. It has been said that political extremism has become a form of addiction—with our news programs and online sources being our "drugs" of choice.

So yes, I am making a big assumption. I am proposing that when citizens understand what is at stake if we don't bridge our political divide, they will be motivated to overcome the obstacles on the path to healing.

Advocating for a Republican or Democratic point of view is fine—even laudable. Expressing the beliefs that are naturally supported by our value matrix is the foundation of democracy—as long as we remember that we are Americans above all else. Political scientist Dr. Jennifer Mercieca cautions, "We must think of ourselves as citizens first, partisans second. We must replace the saying To the victor goes the spoils with To those entrusted with great responsibility belongs the obligation to work for the common good."

Theodore Roosevelt warned us over a century ago that:

The rock on which democracy will founder will be when regions, classes, races, and parties regard one another as "the other," rather than as citizens marked by fellow feeling, banding together for the best interests of our country.

It remains an open question whether we have enough patriots in the country to make healing a realistic goal. I am going to push forward as if we do.

Now, let's define what I mean by healing. Because political differences are based on human nature, we will never eliminate them. Healing will never mean dissolving all disagreements in a "kumbaya" moment. It will also not mean all liberals becoming conservatives (having seen the error of their ways) or all conservatives becoming liberals (having finally seen the light). We are not going to change how human brains are constructed politically any more than we are going to change all right- handers into left-handers (or vice versa).

Healing America is about the way we express our differences.

This is the central theme of this final essay and here is why. Successful nations require some degree of cohesion. Some nations get it through shared ancestry, shared culture, and homogeneity of race, ethnicity or religion. America does not have these characteristics. We must create our cohesion from scratch. This is one area where the conservative respect for traditions is to be commended. We can create national cohesion among our diverse citizenry by remembering our shared values and honoring our history in defending those values. We need more Fourth of July and Memorial Day celebrations. We need more December 7th and 9/11 commemorations. We need more national focus on the past struggles and future aspirations of our citizens. We need more reminders of all we share as Americans—to increase our cohesion.

Communication that disparages the other political tribe breaks down cohesion. It disrespects and dishonors our fellow Americans. It tears at the fabric of our nation. The good of the country requires that we resurrect traditions of respect and collegiality in our political interactions. We have to stop imitating the purveyors of acrimony and division. We need to recognize that civil discussion is patriotic, while angry hate-filled confrontation is not. (My mother would say that some politicians and pundits need their mouths washed out with a bar of soap!)

So where do we begin? Society changes when individuals change. You have begun the process by reading these essays. If you support the overriding concept of national healing, consider incorporating the following suggestions into your own life. No change occurs without a change in what we do—behaviors and habits.

Here are some thoughts:

  * Good governance requires both conservative and liberal perspectives.

Recognize the desires of both sides as expressions of a value matrix.

For most of us, this is a serious change in our attitude about politics. It will not be easy to keep this suggestion in mind. We tend to like ideas that resonate with our value matrix. But we may help national healing if we recognize that our political preferences arise from our core values, not from inherent superiority of one set of ideas over another. Liberals and conservatives form a necessary balance between change and stability.

If you are a conservative, try to be open to the possibility that incremental change is necessary to meet changing circumstances. In self-reflection, identify why you are resisting a particular change in policy. If you are a liberal, try to accept that worthwhile change may take time. In self-reflection, identify why a particular change in policy is so urgent it cannot wait for national consensus.

You don't need to abandon your belief system or political allegiance. You only need to carry an attitude of understanding that does not put others automatically on the defensive.

Support candidates who prioritize the need for national healing.

Partisanship blinds us to the fact that each side is composed of good people who have something important to say. Good ideas need not be rejected just because they are suggested by the other party. Vote for the person who wants to work for consensus, not the one who toes the party line and speaks divisively.

  * Political differences are based on value differences—part of human nature.

Don't add to the political wars by continuing your own skirmishes!

By acknowledging and respecting the values behind other's beliefs, we can begin to decrease suspicion and animosity. Remember—they can't help themselves:

\-- Their value matrixes were determined early and are unlikely to be changed by argument.

\-- Their political differences from you are based on values and not on any inherent moral or intellectual superiority—on either side.

When someone says something that raises your political defensiveness, just keep in mind that if you had their genes and life experiences, you would likely believe the same way they do. Rather than unlocking your arsenal of political debating weapons, keep the peace by simply asking questions that will help you to better understand their perspective. You don't have to surrender—just hold your fire. Attacking the other person or their ideas will not raise the dialogue or promote healing.

You will know you have had a good conversation if it does not end with "I'm right and you're an idiot!" The beginning of healing is the frequent use of the phrase "I respectfully disagree." If disagreement will place an important interpersonal relationship in jeopardy, the best response to political baiting is to not engage. This takes great strength—to stop an argument before it causes hard feelings. The escalation of unproductive debate may be stopped by saying something like: "I know we both want what is best for America. I guess we just have different values." (This is my effort to save Thanksgiving dinner ; )

  * Members of the other tribe deserve to be treated with respect.

Keep political discourse respectful even when disagreeing.

This can be a real challenge. We must acknowledge differences without demonizing. The political divide does not exist because some people are good and some people are evil. Rather, our minds were designed for group cohesion around righteousness. Even when we do not receive it in return, we must model communication that is respectful. Anything less hurts the cause of healing.

The next time you are seated next to someone who operates from a different value matrix, work to keep the conversation civil. Feel free to express your views without expecting to convert the other person. Avoid putting your ego on the line by investing in "winning."

Our country needs less bonding within tribes and more bridging between tribes. Make it a point to talk with those that have different views—avoiding judging and arguing, but listening instead.

One thing that is respectful is the avoidance of political stereotypes. Democrats are not automatically young urban minority socialists. Republicans are not older wealthy evangelical Christians. The average American thinks 39% of democrats are union members—the reality is only 11%. The average American thinks 38% of republicans earn more than $250,000/year—the reality is only 2.2%. Scholars have documented that these stereotypes increase misunderstanding and antagonism.

On the positive side, researches Ahler and Sood have shown that correcting stereotypes about members of opposing political parties can go a long way toward overcoming enmity. When stereotypes about political parties are corrected, subjects realize that members of the opposite partisan party are more similar to them than they thought. This reduces negative feelings. Avoiding stereotypes and emphasizing commonalities is respectful—and decreases partisan hostility.

  * Compromise is not a four letter word.

Support candidates willing to compromise in the interest of the nation.

Right now, neither tribe is willing to "give ground" to the other. Many politicians think it is politically safer to do nothing than to participate in a compromise that gives the other side something they want—even if it helps them get something they want! Our leaders and legislators feel the outside pressure of powerful organizations with money that hold our elected officials hostage. We need to counter this pressure by supporting politicians with the courage to compromise when necessary.

  * Fact is not a four letter word.

Do not reward dividers with listenership, viewership, or online clicks.

Take a stand against lies and fake news that advance the cause of political extremism—even if the ideology make you feel confirmed and supported. Also, let's demonstrate the courage to accept the findings of real science, even when they do not fit easily into our world view. Examine the credentials of experts and verify information with trusted sources so you feel comfortable combating misinformation.

Do not forward inaccurate or hateful messages.

One of the best ways to win a war is to starve the opposition warriors of the logistical support necessary to sustain the battle. If the promotion of extreme views and falsehoods does not make money through advertising revenue, it will die of malnutrition. Forwarding divisive information may make you feel more "bonded" to like-minded friends, but it ultimately encourages more division in the country.

Summary of Action Steps:

  * Recognize the desires of both sides as expressions of a value matrix.

  * Support candidates who prioritize the need for national healing.

  * Don't add to the political wars by continuing your own skirmishes!

  * Keep political discourse respectful even when disagreeing.

  * Support candidates willing to compromise in the interest of the nation.

  * Do not reward dividers with listenership, viewership, or online clicks.

  * Do not forward inaccurate or hateful messages.

These action steps may not seem revolutionary, but if millions of patriotic Americans implemented them in their daily lives, perhaps it could spur the national healing most of us desire.

************

The ultimate survival of our democracy may depend on systemic changes. We need to revamp campaign finance laws to restrict the influence of corporations, lobbyists, and foreign money on our elections. This will require a national consensus that money cannot be at the center of a healthy democracy. We also need to make every vote count equally by outlawing gerrymandering and eliminating laws that have the effect of suppressing voter participation. Finally, it seems clear that, without endangering freedom of speech, we need some regulations on the "Wild West" of radio, television and social media to combat misinformation. Some form of the Fairness Doctrine or "fact check" requirement is needed to combat the wholesale manipulation of citizens. (The technology already exists to computer generate anyone saying or doing anything on video!)

These changes require legislative action, which will only follow broad citizen support. While we wait for consensus to build, we can take action as individuals to improve the health of our democracy.

Healing the ravages of political tribalism will not be easy and it will not be quick. It will be resisted by those who have a vested interest in maintaining our political divisions. Be prepared to hear voices shouting that extremism is patriotic and compromise is cowardice. Consider motivations as you look for the truth.

If you agree that extreme political tribalism is unhealthy for America, you can take personal action that may start to make a difference. History tells us that the ship of state can be turned in a new direction by a minority of committed citizens. We need only reference the protests against the Vietnam War that eventually brought peace or the non-violent activists in the South that moved the country toward social justice.

Do not be discouraged. The healing of America will likely be imperceptible at first. Just as we cannot see the division of cells and the depositing of protein structures that eventually closes a wound on the skin, we will not see the impact of our individual efforts to heal our national divide. But if enough of us learn to practice respectful communication and vote for civility in our politicians, we can transcend tribal politics.

I plan to work for healing in my own thoughts and behaviors. For the good of our country, I hope you will join me.

#  Appendix: Additional Resources

This book is focused on strategies to help heal the political divide at a personal level. If you want to become more involved with groups working collaboratively toward this goal, check out The Bridge Alliance (BridgeAlliance.us). On their website you will find over 100 organizations that are focused on the goal of reducing partisan gridlock and improving American democracy. They are the vanguard of the Awakening Majority.

One example is an organization called Living Room Conversations. It works like this:

Two friends with different political viewpoints each invite two likeminded individuals for a conversation. There are certain rules for the meeting that help keep the conversation positive such as: be respectful, take turns, be curious, take responsibility for adding to a constructive conversation. The format typically allows all participants to find connection and learn to care about each other. The goal is not to change minds, but to open minds and increase understanding. As cofounder Joan Blades says, "You can't solve this problem by simply tuning in only to your political tribe's messages. You need to find ways to reach out and listen to people with different viewpoints in a respectful manner."

Better Angels, an organization founded after the 2016 election, also brings people with different political beliefs together with the goal of increasing understanding and finding common ground. They emphasize listening and speaking skills such as:

  * Paraphrasing what the other says to make sure you understand them and to let them know they are heard. "So you're saying you don't trust the federal government on health care—they will just mess it up."

  * Asking good questions that are not loaded and inflammatory. "I'm curious about how you see national health care working." versus "Why do you want to socialize medicine?"

  * Acknowledging underlying values. "It seems important to you that people don't get a free ride on health care."

  * Using I-statements. "I think a nation as rich as ours can afford to provide health care as a universal right."

  * Using softer expressions—avoiding the dogmatic. "I am concerned/ worried /troubled by the number of people using emergency rooms for basic care."

  * Mentioning areas of similarity or agreement. "It sounds like we both agree that we need health care reform."

The Better Angels website has a more extensive list of ideas.

Finally, without formal help from any organization, try breaking bread with someone who differs from you. (Family gatherings may require it!) Keep the conversation positive by choosing non-confrontational language. Phrases like "I share your concern...," or "In my experience...," or "Help me understand your thinking...," may keep a conversation productive. The fact that you are willing to listen and understand the perspective of another will build the trust required for healing.

If a Republican argues for conservative immigration policies, a Democrat might respectfully say "I agree with you. We can't just ignore those that break the law to find seasonal work. What is the value of laws if they are not enforced? One solution would be to expand the H-2A work visa program to allow more seasonal workers. This would provide a legal work force for agriculture and still keep close track of the workers' entry and exit from the country."

If a Democrat argues for a liberal universal health care policy, a Republican might respectfully say, "It sounds like we prioritize different values on this issue. I think universal health care is a worthy goal, but I also think people have to be responsible for their own choices in life. We both agree that the emergency room is an inefficient way to deliver health care. Is there a way to be more compassionate without burdening taxpayers?"

It may sound a little uncomfortable. Just keep in mind that your efforts are in service to America.

#  Works Cited

Drutman, Lee Breaking the Two Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America (2020)

Gladwell, Malcolm The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference (2007)

Haidt, Jonathan The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (2012)

Hibbing, John/Smith, Hevin/Alford, John Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences (2014)

Katz, Allan The Great American Partisan Divide—The Formation and the Cure (2015)

Lakoff, George Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate (2014)

Lakoff, George Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think (2016)

Lewis, Michael The Failure of America's Political System—Understanding Hyper-partisanship (2015)

Oreskes, Naomi/Conway, Eric Merchants of Doubt ( 2010)

Pinker, Steven Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress (2018)

Pinker, Steven The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (2011)

Project More in Common, The Hidden Tribes of America (2018)

Sapolsky, Robert Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst (2017)

U.S. Global Change Research Program Fourth National Climate Assessment (2018)

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to my wife Carolyn for her patience and support during this project.

Thanks to Don, Kurt, Dave, Bev, Gerry, Zoe, Jim and Linn—friends from both ends of the political spectrum—for reading my manuscript and providing valuable feedback.

Thanks to Deborah Denicola of Intuitive Gateways for her professional guidance.

# Also by R. Wayne Morgan

My Favorite Wisdom:

Notes to My Grandchildren about Life and Living

Sure, I Can Do That:

A Twentieth Century American Memoir

The Fermata Chronicle:

A Novella of the Next Age

Happy Birthday—Your Old:

A Boomer's Guide to Aging

The first and last are available in paperback. All four are available as eBooks.

Just search on your favorite bookseller's website for R. Wayne Morgan.

This book, Transcending Tribal Politics, can be modified by the author as needed.

Feel free to send suggestions, comments, or questions to:

rwaynemorgan@comcast.net

