The growing "Joe Wilson" complex

Congressman Joe Wilson’s (R-SC) outburst during President Obama’s address before Congress was a breach of decorum and as such was widely chastised. In Mr. Wilson’s "defense" he said he simply lost control of his emotions. Indeed he did, yet what is more shocking and unfortunate is how common deep-seeded hatred such as Rep. Wilson’s has become in the political sphere. No doubt, those who argue that political disrespect and polarization are new elements of American politics have short memories; liberals hated Bush at least as much as conservatives hate Obama and hated Bill Clinton. Indeed, one needs to only read archived op-eds from the Vietnam era to find a history rich with polarized viewpoints and disrespect in the public square. Yet after watching a few of the most popular news shows, such as Bill O’Reilly, Keith Olbermann, or Glenn Beck, listening to the maddening crowds at town hall meetings, and seeing the disdain public officials so blatantly show for those on the other side of the aisle, one can’t help but get the feeling things aren’t getting better and they very may well be getting worse.

According to Bill Bishop, author of the book, The Big Sort, Americans are grouping themselves into communities of like-minded individuals like never before. Take the example of the growing political homogeneity of America’s neighborhoods. In the 1976 election of Jimmy Carter only 24 percent of counties that voted President Carter were landslides (over sixty percent voting for Carter). However, in 2004 over 48 percent of counties that voted for President Obama were landslides—double that of 1976. Bishop’s thesis is that Americans have a growing interest in being around and associated with those who are as like them as possible, and with the average American moving once every five years, the phenomenon is increasing.

Yet polarization is not only expanding in our neighbors, its also growing inside our online networks. The internet—arguably the greatest platform for communication the world has ever known—with its ability to bring different people from differences places together with a click of a mouse might seem like an unlikely place for group polarization, but with endless opportunities for self-selection it’s a prime environment for group-think. Harvard professor Robert Putnam makes such a prediction in his book Bowling Alone, Putnam argues that by eliminating the constraints of geography organizations can create themselves in whatever way they want, eliminating stragglers, dissenters, and black swans. For example, if you were a car enthusiast in 1970 and you wanted to join a car club with your 1964 cherry-red Mustang, you would be forced to join the local car club where inevitably you would have to interact with other enthusiasts with different makes and models. Today, with a quick Google search you could find a virtual group of only those who own other 1964 cherry-red Mustangs. In such an environment you would surely learn more about your Mustang but you wouldn’t know anything about your next door neighbor’s lighting-blue 1960 Chevy.

So we live, socialize, work, vote, and pray with those who think the way we do, what’s the problem? Surely, there are advantages to being with those we feel connected to. Indeed, Richard Florida in his book The Creative Class argues innovation-clusters and the economic gains that follow, are created in urban communities that bring together vibrant, creative, and artistic people. Similarly, in a report I co-authored ranking U.S. states based on their development towards the New Economy, the technology- and innovation-leaders were landslide states for Barack Obama (Massachusetts, Washington, Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey took the top five spots).

First, it’s unclear if the gains that are made from a creative and highly-educated population could not be achieved to a greater degree in diverse communities. In fact, in Why Societies Need Dissent Harvard University professor Cass Sunstein points out that boards of directors who tend to disagree often are financially more successful then those who predominately share views. Second, by isolating ourselves to those whom we agree we limit our propensity for intellectual progress. In the word of Professor Sunstein, “Democracy is contingent on unplanned, unanticipated interactions with those whom are unlike ourselves.”

In reality, isolating ourselves to those who share our viewpoints restricts our ability to explore new territory and sharpen our understanding of the world. Yet as technology and higher standards of living make it easier to self-select associations, we need to make explicit efforts to seek out the opinions and viewpoints that differ from our own. Although I have a long way to go before fully taking my own advice, I do have a small ritual I perform to learn about the viewpoints of those I disagree with. Fridays are what I call “Speaker’s Corner Fridays”, where I read at least four things I know at the onset I’ll probably disagree with. The origin of this little tradition came from when I was living in London and I would run on Fridays through Hyde Park past Speaker’s Corner, where the craziest dissenters got their say. Although the concept is slightly silly, I believe it has actually helped me developed a much more rounded worldview and a keener understanding of public policy.