Political polarization may emerge because of conflicting desires, not beliefs

It seems to me that part of the solution might be working to develop solutions that don't prevent the other side from achieving their desires. My ideal vision of how America works (e.g. the American dream as I see it) is that everyone is free to live according to their own way of life and society works for win-win solutions. However, it seems to me that both sides are afraid that if the other side wins they will try to force their lifestyle on them; and I think they are probably right.

Madison discusses factionalism in Federalist No. 10, and as I read it, basically concludes that all these competing desires&#x2F;interests and&#x2F;or beliefs would be best served by a federal republic where locals would be able to solve their problems in the appropriate way for their constituents. So, decentralizing power away from Washington D.C. and putting it in the hands people more directly. Some people cannot accept this and would like to exert control over people living +1000 miles away. There is just too much diversity to manage 300M people from a central authority without sacrificing liberty. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and authoritarian ideas of governance must be vigilantly opposed.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Federalist_No._10#Madison.27s_arguments" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Federalist_No._10#Madison.27s_...</a>

This seems like a weird and hardly surprising piece.<p>The idea that one of two political ideas is &#x27;right&#x27; or that that even matters is utterly absurd.<p>The whole point of politics is to find solutions that resolve conflicting desires.<p>Polarization happens when the solutions simply don&#x27;t do that.<p>The problem should not be framed as &#x27;how to get people to change their desires and beliefs&#x27; to match a political ideology. The challenge is to come up with some new ways of looking at things that resolve the differences.

Two thousand years ago people were at each other&#x27;s throats over &quot;homoousion&quot;. One thousand years ago over &quot;filioque&quot;. Four hundred years ago it was predestination. The idea that large-scale conflict over ideology is some kind of aberration to be explained by &quot;biases&quot; is just a figment of the modern ideology of &quot;rationality&quot;. In five hundred years they will study this time period and ask, how could they have been so worked up over these minor and obscure points, hardly even comprehensible any more, that they tore their society apart? And the answer will be the same as always - human nature: superstitious, tribal, dogmatic, and violent.

So what is the solution? I feel like the US is currently on a very unsustainable path right now with the political polarization.

I remember seeing an animated graphic of survey results over time (Past ~20 years) that showed the left has been getting lefter at ~5x the rate that the right is getting righter.<p>I&#x27;m curious what would explain this.

That&#x27;s depressing. No matter how right I am I&#x27;ll never be able to convince others.

&gt; Participants indicated who they desired to win, and who they believed would win, the election.<p>Would be more interesting if conducted around desires and beliefs about deeper outcomes than who wins an election.

Wait so you&#x27;re saying political polarization isn&#x27;t because all southerners are racist idiots? You mean they might actually have reasonable desires of their own? Mind blown. &#x2F;s

Don&#x27;t forget that this extreme polarization is an American thing. At least Germany doesn&#x27;t have it to that degree. The parties have differences but they don&#x27;t demonize each other.