Reddit mentions of Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy

The increasing diversity of the country plays an underrated role in the increasing political divide.

Robert Putnam's work E Pluribus Unum goes over this extensively:

>In the theoretical toolkit of social science we find two diametrically opposed perspectives on the effects of diversity on social connections. The first, usually labelled the ‘contact hypothesis’, argues that diversity fosters interethnic tolerance and social solidarity. As we have more contact with people who are unlike us, we overcome our initial hesitation and ignorance and come to trust them more...Evidence of this sort suggested to social psychologists, beginning with Gordon Allport in the 1950s, the optimistic hypothesis that if we have more contact with people of other ethnic and racial backgrounds (or at least more contact in the right circumstances), we will all begin to trust one another more. More formally, according to this theory, diversity reduces ethnocentric attitudes and fosters out-group trust and solidarity. If black and white children attend the same schools, for example, race relations will improve. This logic was an important part of the legal case that led the United States Supreme Court to require racial desegregation in the famous Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954. For progressives, the contact theory is alluring, but I think it is fair to say that most (though not all) empirical studies have tended instead to support the so-called ‘conflict theory’, which suggests that, for various reasons – but above all, contention over limited resources – diversity fosters out-group distrust and in-group solidarity. On this theory, the more we are brought into physical proximity with people of another race or ethnic background, the more we stick to ‘our own’ and the less we trust the ‘other’ (Blumer 1958; Blalock 1967; Giles & Evans 1986; Quillian 1995, 1996; Brewer & Brown 1998; Taylor 1998; Bobo 1999; Bobo & Tuan 2006)...

>The evidence that diversity and solidarity are negatively correlated (controlling for many potentially confounding variables) comes from many different settings:

>• Across workgroups in the United States, as well as in Europe, internal heterogeneity (in terms of age, professional background, ethnicity, tenure and other factors) is generally associated with lower group cohesion, lower satisfaction and higher turnover (Jackson et al. 1991; Cohen & Bailey 1997; Keller 2001; Webber & Donahue 2001).

>• Across countries, greater ethnic heterogeneity seems to be associated with lower social trust (Newton & Delhey 2005; Anderson & Paskeviciute 2006; but see also Hooghe et al. 2006).

>• Across local areas in the United States, Australia, Sweden, Canada and Britain, greater ethnic diversity is associated with lower social trust and, at least in some cases, lower investment in public goods (Poterba 1997; Alesina et al. 1999; Alesina & La Ferrara 2000, 2002; Costa & Kahn 2003b; Vigdor 2004; Glaeser & Alesina 2004; Leigh 2006; Jordahl & Gustavsson 2006; Soroka et al. 2007; Pennant 2005; but see also Letki forthcoming).

>• Among Peruvian micro-credit cooperatives, ethnic heterogeneity is associated with higher default rates; across Kenyan school districts ethnolinguistic diversity is associated with less voluntary fundraising; and in Himalayan Pakistan, clan, religious, and political diversity are linked with failure of collective infrastructure maintenance (Karlan 2002; Miguel & Gugerty 2005; Khwaja 2006).

>• Across American census tracts, greater ethnic heterogeneity is associated with lower rates of car-pooling, a social practice that embodies trust and reciprocity (Charles & Kline 2002).

>• Within experimental game settings such as prisoners-dilemma or ultimatum games, players who are more different from one another (regardless of whether or not they actually know one another) are more likely to defect (or ‘cheat’). Such results have been reported in many countries, from Uganda to the United States (Glaeser et al. 2000; Fershtman & Gneezy 2001; Eckel & Grossman 2001; Willinger et al. 2003; Bouckaert & Dhaene 2004; Johansson-Stenman et al. 2005; Gil-White 2004; Habyarimana et al. 2006).

>• Within the Union (northern) Army in the American Civil War, the casualty rate was very high and the risks of punishment for desertion were very low, so the only powerful force inhibiting the rational response of desertion was loyalty to one’s fellow soldiers, virtually all of whom were other white males. Across companies in the Union Army, the greater the internal heterogeneity (in terms of age, hometown, occupation, etc.), the higher the desertion rate (Costa & Kahn 2003a).

>In areas of greater diversity, our respondents demonstrate:

>• Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.

>• Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in their own influence.

>• Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.

>• Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).

>• Less likelihood of working on a community project.

>• Lower likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.

>• Fewer close friends and confidants.

>• Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.

>• More time spent watching television and more agreement that ‘television is my most important form of entertainment’.

At least a few of those bullet points ought to immediately remind you of Trump supporters, particularly trust in media and political efficacy ("the system is rigged!").

Next, it's worth noting the problems of social segregation. Other people in this thread have mentioned how social media allows people to exist in bubbles where they only receive information that they like. Google does the same thing by tailoring your search results to things you're likely to click on based on past activity. This is dangerous because the willingness to listen to opposing viewpoints and exercise tolerance is predicted by one’s exposure to counter-attitudinal messages. In other words, listening to viewpoints that contradict our own makes us more tolerant. In this way, the lack of ideological diversity in higher education contributes to intolerance (especially among leftist students). President Obama has made this point on occasion. However, it's obviously a problem for all of society at this point. Think of the person listening only to right wing radio and Fox, or the lefties on reddit who get their news from /r/politics.

The same problem happens offline in real life too. 538 has already noted how our most diverse cities are also among our most segregated, although this should not be surprising to anyone, as people naturally self-segregate. Although I don't have a source for it off-hand, that people segregate based on political affiliation as well should also come as no surprise. And without communal activities to bring them together like church among dozens of other possibilities, people no longer interact with people with different politics from their own. Putnam went over the decline in participation in these sorts of things in his most famous work, Bowling Alone.

Finally, it's worth emphasizing that diversity just has negative consequences for society, regardless of the economic impact or crime. We already have evidence that homogeneity correlates with strong democracy, that genetic diversity causes societal conflict, that ethnic diversity causally decreases social cohesion, and even that diversity increases social adversity. This should help explain the anxiety of Trump supporters despite the fact that the unemployment rate is low, and that crime is quite low historically.