Polarization, Owain Campton

The scale and extent of the George Floyd protests have encouraged lawmakers to act on the issue of racial injustice and police brutality. Politicians are far more likely to vote on an issue, especially in a positive manner, if they know their constituents are so angry about it that they have taken to the streets to demand change. Protest is necessary. For every day that these protests continue, for every person that joins in, for every news article that a politician sees about this issue, change becomes that much more likely to happen. The louder you get, the more likely they are to hear you. A single mass protest may not solve the issue immediately, it may not even

1 OWAIN CAMPTON It is incredibly diffi cult to tell if we are more polarised now than we ever have been before because we cannot accurately compare our current situation to that of the past. In the 70s our parents did not have even a tiny fraction of the available communication tools and networks that we have access to today. Facebook, Twitter, even the fi rst 24-hour television news channel were not options to our parents, but they’re a constant part of life now. To debate the issues “back in the day” you had to buy a newspaper or listen to the six o’clock news, and then talk it over with your friends and family. What this meant was that typically you were speaking about the issues with less informasolve it fully but with enough momentum, the governments of the world have no choice but to start listening to the noise created. So, if you can, go out and protest to better your life, go out and protest to better the lives of others. It is one of the most important methods for creating change that any person has and with enough voices fi ghting to better the world, it might just become

Polarization

somewhat of a better place for all of us. 1 tion, and in an echo chamber with those of similar views. Still, to this day we fl ock into our own safe echo chambers, however, it is impossible to avoid the occasional troll and the doom thread where two sides of the arguments clash at length. We are exposed to a lot more political noise, which means it can seem that the world is completely divided, however, this seems more like a symptom of a world connected than a world in pieces. If during the 80s you brought a Welsh miner to meet a Thatcherite, I am sure you would have seen them have some choice words for each other - they would never have seen eye to eye on issues of state. It is the same today, it is just a lot easier for the left and the right to meet.

What we can tell, however, is that we have more people than ever that are politically disengaged, with Pew Research showing over 50% of social media users are in this category, and this is where the danger lies. When the majority of people put their hands up in despair and say “I can’t be bothered anymore” it means that politicians are forced to do one of two things; either try to re-engage the disenfranchised and politically exhausted, or play to the politically active wings. Playing to those who are active is the easier and straightforward choice, as it just costs less money to encourage them out to vote. The problem with this is typically those on the right are more likely to vote than those on the left, with the right being older than the left, and those on the left then becoming more anti-establishment as they see the political landscape move rightwards. This means our political parties are becoming further apart but this fl uctuation of political parties moving further from each other, then closer again, is not something unusual. In fact, the Democratic and Republicans in the United States were practically swapping sides between the 1860s and 1930s, with Democrats becoming the party arguing for a more involved government and Republicans for a smaller and more limited government.

Recently we have seen this division occur in 2017 and 2019 with May and Johnson’s Right versus Corbyn’s Left. The Conservatives were able to play to a rightward leaning politically engaged voter base, with Corbyn scrambling to mobilise a smaller engaged semi-socialist left, while pulling in those who typically do not vote or, if they do, vote for third parties. Although Starmer is not very forthcoming on any particular stances as of yet, he does seem to be moving back to a slightly more centralised leftist position, to engage a wider group, and pull in some of those disenfranchised central conservative voters.

Ultimately, we may seem more polarised than ever, but this is more likely symptomatic of us living in a world where the two sides of the aisle are able to debate more freely, and the middle group shrinking away into the background, exhausted by the constant shouting match, rather than the majority of us being specifi cally on one side or the other. So what is one to do? Well, keep voting to start with, but also when you are debating the issues, be open and receptive to other points of view, even if you never intend to move to the other stance. This leaves you in a lot stronger position to then try pull people out of their bubble.

As I wrote in an article three years ago (Call Out or Call In) “The “Call In” is a much more effective tool at facilitating progress. This is where the two sides speak person to person […] It by-passes our instinctive tribal nature, as it looks for ways we are the same, not different, giving the sense you are both a part of the one group. This stops either of your automatic defence mechanisms fl aring up. We all know we may not be right, but what we have to do is not be afraid to admit to this, this’ll show others it’s safe to do so, keeping people more open minded. Doing this allows you to talk, to discuss your beliefs, where they come from, where they are rooted, in a healthy conversation.”