Why Is Our Society So Polarized?

Reviewing the book “Why We’re Polarized” By Ezra Klein

The book is about political polarization, as obvious by the title. The author argues for this increased polarization in many ways, but perhaps the simplest is this: in one study, parents were asked if it was a concern if their son or daughter married someone from another political party. In 1960, only 4–5% did. In 2010, that rose to 33–49%. That’s a 9-fold increase! Why is this happening? That’s what this book tries to answer.

First, some context. This was an odd book for me to read. I try to stay away from politics whenever I can. However, this one interested me for a couple of reasons. One, it’s a topic I’m highly interested in: political polarization. Second, due to its author. I know almost nothing about Ezra Klein except that he was the co-founder of Vox. But I do remember him being involved in a controversy with Sam Harris about Charles Murray. The very fact that Ezra Klein was willing to talk with Sam Harris and even Murray himself previously, made a very good impression on me, representing intellectual and political goodwill.

In addition, Vox doesn’t line up with my political views very much. While I don’t consider myself on the right, I don’t view myself on the left either. So I was hoping that a leftist perspective from Ezra would enrich my political perspective. Even more so because I always felt Vox was undeservingly ridiculed by the right, and considering being much further left than it actually is, I’ve seen very good journalism from them. Not saying there aren’t some ridiculous pieces or that they don’t have a left bias, but I don’t think their extremist reputation is deserved.

I disliked the beginning of the book. It was heavily US-centered and covered a fair bit of political history in the country. He did this to try to prove that the current polarization that is peaking with Trump is a symptom and not a cause. I don’t mind being US-based, and I obviously expected it, as I find the political situation in the US to be highly relevant and important for world affairs. However, the historical account seemed to go into way too many tangents to be useful for me. And I often had no idea what people or events he was talking about. Even the political system itself, such as all the nuances of how voting works, went largely over my head.

Afterwards, he touched on a fair bit of political psychology. For example the role of personality in political belief or the heavy role of tribalism or identity. I was fairly familiar with it, but it was still enjoyable to read, scientifically sound, and I learned of many interesting studies I wasn’t familiar with. The most insightful ones include:

• People rating a policy based on if their party approved it or not, regardless of whether the policy aligns with the parties’ values or not;
• People getting worse at math when a math problem suggests a policy against your party;
• Changing who is considered an expert based on if they agree with you or not;
• How more politically inclined people who consumed more political information are more misinformed.

Most importantly, these effects apply to both political spectrums. It is not exclusive to any party. It is part of being a human being engaged in politics.

The second part of the book is more focused on news institutions. How our modern environment feeds a feedback loop of polarization. Some of it I found quite insightful and not something I was aware of. Having candidates that rely less (or nothing) on party funding tends to be more polarizing as they need to motivate donations through inspiration or outrage. Or how the media has become increasingly nationalized — the local and state-level politics have been increasingly disappearing in favour of “hot” national politics. These are things that are very hard to affect at an individual level, but they are at the core of ideological battles that now root our political identities.

I really enjoyed the book. Sometimes the US history was a bit too much for it, and I certainly don’t agree politically on some topics. For example, the author discredits any power or danger of political correctness or cancel culture, when I do think they are very relevant and worrisome, despite obviously being overblown as political things always do.

The book clearly has a heavy bias towards the left, but it nevertheless presents an incredibly reasonable position and tries (in my view, successfully) to ground in the best science and historical analysis available. And that’s all you can ask because you’re just as biased.

If you’re interested in political polarization, and I would say even more so if you don’t consider yourself on the left, this book is very much worth reading. At times it may be uncomfortable and it feels like you’re reading a very biased and stupid position, but hopefully, you will recognize that taking it seriously will make you less biased and stupid. And more broadly than politics, this book also greatly enriched how I viewed identity in general, which I found very helpful.

“The political media is biased, but not toward the Left or Right so much as toward loud, outrageous, colorful, inspirational, confrontational. It is biased toward the political stories and figures who activate our identities, because it is biased toward and dependent on the fraction of the country with the most intense political identities.”

“So here, then, is the last fifty years of American politics summarized: we became more consistent in the party we vote for not because we came to like our party more — indeed, we’ve come to like the parties we vote for less — but because we came to dislike the opposing party more. Even as hope and change sputter, fear and loathing proceed.”

Thanks for reading. If you like non-fiction book reviews, feel free to follow me on Medium.

If you don’t use Medium, you can sign up for email notifications of my posts or subscribe to my Substack.