Find this episode on Apple, Spotify and wherever you get your podcasts!
Robb Willer is Director of the Polarization and Social Change Lab at Stanford University. Since its inception, the lab has conducted cutting-edge research across the fields of social psychology, political science, sociology, organizational behavior, and cognitive science research to develop practical scientific knowledge and actionable solutions for pathways to a healthy democracy and strategies for social change.
In this episode of The Depolarizers, Robb and I discuss ways we can collectively exit America’s toxic political polarization as well as how both parties can improve the manner in which they speak to voters.
Robb is also Co-Director of Stanford’s Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society.
What Type of Polarization Is Increasing
When Professor Willer thinks about polarization, he approaches it from two lenses:
Willer distinguishes between elite polarization (among politicians and influential figures) and mass polarization (among everyday citizens).
He also differentiates between affective polarization (emotional dislike of opposing groups) and attitudinal polarization (disagreement on issues and policies).
Willer notes that while all forms of polarization are increasing, attitudinal polarization among the general public is increasing less than other types of polarization. That means among voters, there has been less of a growing divide about what issues matter and what voters believe on those issues. Instead, what is commonly described as growing political polarization is more about elites becoming more affectively disdainful of the other side. That’s why we at Welcome still believe it’s possible to win the middle.
How To Get What You Want
Another key theme in Willer’s work is the effectiveness of moral reframing in political persuasion. Willer's research proves that candidates and policies can gain broader support by connecting their messages to the moral values of their target audience, even if those values differ from the candidate's own base. This approach can help expand support among moderate voters and even cross-partisan voters without significantly losing support from one's existing base.
Perhaps Willer’s most famous study in the political world explores how moral reframing can be used by advocates to win policies they want. The study involves “Scott Miller,” a fictitious politician running for Congress.
The study presented two versions of “Scott” from a policy perspective:
Under the moderately-progressive policy conditions, participants learned that Scott Miller supported four relatively moderate progressive policies: setting up an infrastructure program with 200,000 new jobs, maintaining the Affordable Care Act in its current form, increasing the federal minimum wage to $9.50, and creating a parental leave program that would provide one month of paid leave for all working mothers.
Under the highly progressive policy conditions, Scott Miller supported setting up an infrastructure program with 5,000,000 new jobs, expanding Medicare to cover all uninsured Americans, increasing the minimum wage to $12.00, and creating a parental leave program that would provide three months of paid leave for all working mothers and fathers.
But in addition to policy, Scott was also given frames through which he presented his policies. For instance, one framed the policy around inequality and economic justice:
“I support these policies because they will help reduce economic inequality and promote economic justice. My federal infrastructure plan will create 200,000 jobs, good jobs with fair pay and benefits.” (Individualizing)
Another centered support for hard-working Americans:
“I support these policies because showing respect for hard-working Americans is a sacred national tradition that I believe we must honor. My federal infrastructure plan will create 200,000 jobs, good jobs with dignity and respectable wages.” (Binding)
The final focused more on a technical case rooted in the need for economic growth:
"My vision for America is to restore the unique levels of productivity that we have lost. The American economy was once a success story. But as of last year, our gross domestic product per capita was 11th place in the world. Now we need economic growth and good-paying jobs.” (Technical)
The chart below summarizes the results, which show that moderate and conservative voters are much more likely to prefer our friend Scott when he embraces the “binding” frame that is more focused on hard work and honor. Willer notes in his conversation with me that this shows the value in Democrats embracing more moderate rhetoric, even when embracing progressive policies.
As we’ve noted on WelcomeStack, Democrats often pursue an approach that has proven to be contrary to the successful approach of our friend Scott Miller: they are using radical left-wing rhetoric to describe what is in fact a moderate, pro-American energy domestic agenda.
Pragmatic and Idealistic Approaches to Politics
In our conversation, Willer also explores the tension between pragmatists and idealists, or as Willer calls them, “utopians,” in politics, particularly on the left. Pragmatists focus on achievable goals and institutional constraints, while idealists prioritize moral principles and transformative change. Willer argues that both approaches have merits, and finding ways for these groups to work together more effectively is crucial for achieving political goals.
Willer argues that it is good for social movements to organize around a shared moral vision, but many people don’t understand how important persuasion is in American politics. He notes that America’s diversity and the numerous veto points in our political system (Senate filibuster, federalism, Supreme Court) mean that change will always be slow and incremental, and he laments that more people don’t fully understand these limits on change.
Willer cites the (currently unpublished) work of Rachel Ruttan and Katie DeCelles at the University of Toronto: people associated with moderate positions on political issues are seen as less moral and less morally motivated. He notes that in their research, voters see moderate stances and ask, “how can you be moderate on an issue like abortion? You must go one way or another. There's not really a reason to be in the middle.”
Willer finds that people who criticize moderates often miss a critical truth: a pragmatist may have a moderate policy position or support a candidate who is moderate — not just for the sake of being moderate, but due to a calculus that will allow them to behold values and achieve political goals through the reality of a pluralistic society and the polity of getting individuals elected.
In other words, pragmatists understand that in order to achieve their goals, they must think about the bigger picture.
This is particularly important when it comes to our heavily-polarized state legislatures. Talk to a state legislator in any super-minority, and they’ll likely note that pragmatism must be prioritized for their party to get most anything done. As we saw in the Scott Miller exhibit, advocates should use moderate rhetoric to achieve their political goals.
Willer worries about a common reality in our flattened social media discourse: people end up getting pilloried for advocating for pragmatist positions, even when they have strong moral motivations and are taking those pragmatic positions for strategic reasons. He argues that these pragmatists are making a different calculus based on the specifics of implementation. Advocates should not attack pragmatists, claiming they don’t have gumption, conviction or investment, but rather understand that these pragmatists may have a better understanding of the real stakes of the issue.
Willer recalls a tangible example of this in a trip to Washington, DC in 2019. During that visit, Willer met with staff of both the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Blue Dog Caucus around the time when Medicare for All was in the news. Staff of the Progressive Caucus were making a moral argument that Democrats should stand for the ideal that all Americans should have healthcare, and that since a Democrat wasn’t in the White House at the time, they should use it as an opportunity to establish their moral goals.
But then, Willer met with the Blue Dogs. These staffers told him that if their Members, who represented swing districts, voted for Medicare for All, they would lose their elections, which would make it much harder to get things done in 2021 because the Democratic majority would be smaller. They argued that even if Medicare for All somehow passed the House, it wouldn’t pass the Senate, and it would be vetoed by the President.
The Blue Dogs argued that keeping their Members in Congress was critical to making some progress — any forward progress — on the issue of healthcare.
And, of course, the Blue Dogs were right: candidates who ran on Medicare for All that cycle were more likely to lose. Democrats nominated moderate Joe Biden as their nominee and beat Donald Trump. They were able to expand access to the healthcare subsidies of the Affordable Care Act, allow Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices, and cap out-of-pocket drug spending. It was all made possible by the vote of Joe Manchin in the Senate and Democrats like Jared Golden, Mary Peltola and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez in the House.
The Activist’s Dilemma
Willer’s Social Change Research Lab has also done extensive research on what is called the “activist’s dilemma,” the idea that protest actions that are most likely to draw media attention because of their radicalism also reduce support for the movement and their goals. Willer argues that while salient actions may be useful early on in a movement to put issues on the agenda, over time, these actions will become less useful because the movement may be better served by “secret Congress.”
Take an issue like climate change. Initially, activists utilized extreme, attention-grabbing headlines to get their issue on the agenda with the “Green New Deal.” Once climate change was on the agenda, “Secret Congress” was the better avenue for progress, and many mainstream climate NGOs criticized the far-left rhetoric as unhelpful in a time when the pivotal vote on climate was Joe Manchin.
In the primary Willer study, they analyzed two different anti-Trump protests:
In the moderate protest condition, participants watched a video of a news report covering protesters outside of a Trump campaign event holding up signs and chanting at Trump supporters entering the event.
In the extreme protest condition, participants watched news coverage of anti-Trump protesters gathering in the middle of a busy street, physically blocking carloads of Trump supporters from reaching a Trump campaign event and causing a traffic jam. The reporter covering the event describes the protesters as creating “a potentially dangerous situation” because their “actions are causing motorists to drive into oncoming traffic.”
Additionally, a control group was shown a 90-second video of men building a deck, which is fun to imagine.
As the chart below shows, those who saw the moderate anti-Trump protest became less supportive of Trump. However, those who saw the extreme anti-Trump protest became more supportive of Trump.
The way to win is moderate protests against Trump – those that welcome a broad range of voters into the coalition against Trump.
Disagree Better
Finally, Willer shares encouraging research on the positive reception of bipartisan "disagree better" public service announcements, indicating that there may be more appetite for civil, cross-partisan dialogue than commonly assumed.
The research of the Stanford Polarization and Social Change Lab showed half of respondents three “Disagree Better” ads, and the other half three non-political public service announcements. These “Disagree Better” ads included a Republican and Democratic Governor expressing a desire to see more healthy disagreement (we enjoyed this ad where Cox is joined by Democratic Governor Jared Polis).
The participants who viewed the “Disagree Better” ads rather than the control had lower partisan animosity and an increase in support for bipartisanship.
How to Depolarize
Willer makes the case that the best way to depolarize is to try to actively pass legislation. By doing so, we familiarize ourselves with the realities of passing laws in a country as diverse as America. Seeing firsthand the struggles that lawmakers like the Blue Dogs face, Willer argues, helps voters better understand the real barriers to change, which may transform utopian idealists into pragmatists.
Like what you’re hearing? Share this podcast with your friends, and support our work to depolarize American politics though our 501(c3), The Welcome Democracy Institute.
The Depolarizers: The Way Out