"How Could Anyone Believe That?": Interacting With Unfamiliar Beliefs Across the U.S. Political Divide

To what extent do regular individuals hold substantive, organized belief systems (or ideologies), and what dynamics unfold when individuals encounter unfamiliar belief systems? While much research investigates ways to reduce party animosity in the U.S. public, I seek to highlight a related, but distinct goal – generating cross-party understanding. Can individuals be pushed beyond a lukewarm tolerance of the other party – such as the notion of agreeing to disagree – toward a fuller understanding in which they see legitimate rationales for the other side’s beliefs? With such a goal in mind, I draw from a variety of research programs to develop an explaining differences approach to party conflict. In this framework, core disagreements between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans stem from differing views of a “dangerous world” (a “danger” view for conservatives and a “humanism” view for liberals). I find evidence that there is more ideological disagreement in the public than previous research indicates. Additionally, there is an overlooked substantive component to party animosity, which can also be described as an ideological empathy gap. For this reason, common de-polarization approaches that emphasize commonalities between the parties run the risk of ignoring real differences that are contributing to pressure on democratic institutions. I present results from an initial experiment in which liberal Democrats learn about the conservative danger view, and conservative Republicans learn about the liberal humanism view. I argue that such efforts to address the ideological empathy gap will be necessary for preventing democratic erosion.