One of many weird effects of polarization inside a system that requires compromise to function: as the intensity and stakes of disagreements rise, the ability to resolve them collapses.
One reason you can't resolve them is because people are locked into position in terms of what they believe and who they fear, so it's very hard to create the swings in public opinion necessary to move the system.
But a reason people are locked into position is that elite cues are powerful, and polarization locks elites into position, which stops public opinion swings from happening. Frances Lee's work is great on the dynamics here: vox.com/policy-and-pol…
I have less evidence for this, but I think a 3rd reason people are locked into position is that not enough policy change is happening to change their views.
Ie, if you could smoothly pass sweeping change, that *could* change people's views. But you mostly can't.
Ie, if you could smoothly pass sweeping change, that *could* change people's views. But you mostly can't.
To recap: Polarization makes people angrier but also, in our system, makes disputes harder to resolve. That both makes people even angrier, and makes it nearly impossible for either party to get enough power to govern dramatically enough to change people's loyalties.
So the pressure just keeps building, and that, for now at least, just keeps making the system less able to actually resolve debates through either one-party government or compromise legislation.
Obligatory book plug, as the book is basically all about these dynamics — how they started, how they're feeding on each other, and where they're taking us: whywerepolarized.com
