Noting that “we have little influence on our political opponents” and that our instincts for facing conflict are “amazingly bad and often drive us deeper” into it, Elwood argues that, because “no one is in charge,” liberals should undertake the “morally righteous and vitally important endeavor” to reduce polarization. This demands humility, he notes, though he acknowledges that it’s possible to do this work while still believing the conflict is “mostly the other side’s fault.” After exploring the polarization feedback loop that continually encourages dehumanization, and examining declining trust in media and the complexities of asymmetrical conflict, Elwood lays out steps for lowering the temperature: pushing back against divisive behaviors on one’s own “side”; talking about and modeling behaviors that diminish conflict; avoiding “language that we know will anger the other side for no good reason and for no practical benefit.”
Elwood demonstrates persuasively that insults and contempt fueled by hate, ignorance, and fear lead groups to barely recognize each other, making the impasse difficult to bridge. Speaking of contempt, Elwood makes no secret of his feelings about Trumpism, but he does take ownership of his own anger and disgust, admitting that, after the 2016 election, “I behaved in ways that I now realize were childish and only added to our divides.” There’s much to reflect on in his urging liberals to perform the middle-child role of peacemaker, even at a strategic level: shaming the “bad guys” never persuades them to listen.
Takeaway: A liberal’s call for his side to lower the temperature of American politics.
Comparable Titles: Ezra Klein’s Why We’re Polarized, Justin Lee’s Talking Across the Divide.
Production grades
Cover: A-
Design and typography: A
Illustrations: N/A
Editing: A
Marketing copy: A-