It should go without saying, particularly on such a politically inclined and well-informed forum such as LessWrong, that political polarization is rising across the United States. It should also go without saying that this is detrimental to our nation; the efficacy of our government is hindered by partisanship and our communities are fractured and incohesive. (Excited for the holidays, anyone?) Social media, the pandemic, the economic situation, and other modern issues are widely blamed, and indeed contribute significantly to our current predicament, but political polarization exists and has persisted independently of these factors. Further, we cannot simply “turn off” social media, pandemics, and economic troubles; accordingly, our nation must learn to cope with the inevitable technological advances and societal hardships without tearing itself apart. 

To properly manage polarization, it would be most effective to focus directly on the root cause, rather than attempting to finely tune various social and political factors that are largely outside of our control. It is not difficult to identify polarization as a facet of tribalism, an aspect of human nature which demands allegiance towards factions to which one belongs. Tribalism is not inherently deleterious; it engenders loyalty to the family, community, and country, serves as motivation for cooperation in large groups, and provides a sense of purpose. It is also personally gratifying; watching friends succeed, cheering on favored sports teams, and joining family in celebration are enjoyable primarily because such activities appeal to tribalism. Regardless, tribalism is responsible for numerous social ills; for instance, racism, xenophobia, and other forms of discrimination are born of loyalties to a particular cultural or social group, which in turn incentivize members of dominant groups to grant privileges to and prioritize the well-being of fellow members at the expense of non-dominant groups. 
 

Political polarization is a variant of tribalism with an ideological basis. It begins with numerous individuals discovering that they share beliefs, particularly those regarding societal issues and governance, and forming a group to discuss and advocate for these beliefs. Such groups range in size and influence, from friend groups, to online communities, to the Democratic and Republican parties. As relationships with and sympathies towards the group deepen, a sense of comradery develops, and tribalism emerges. As tribalism becomes more influential, members of the group develop loyalty to each other and any leaders that may have emerged, which may surpass loyalty towards the ideas that originally incited the formation of the group. To demonstrate allegiance, members espouse increasingly radical ideas and distance themselves, ideologically and personally, from non-members and members of opposing groups. This final stage of radicalization, the refusal to associate and communicate with perceived political opponents, is what we identify as political polarization.

Tribalism is not a core motivation for polarization in and of itself; very few people openly desire to sacrifice their ideals and potentially cause harm to others in service of an in-group of any sort, particularly a political party. Rather, empathy, defined here as the identification with and emotional inclination to be kind towards another person, is the root of tribalism, and therefore the impetus for political polarization. Humans only have the capacity to truly comprehend and recognize the personhood of, to feel sonder for, approximately one-hundred and fifty people; this limit is known as Dunbar’s number and ranges between one-hundred and two-hundred fifty, with the stated figure being the commonly-cited average. As our empathy is limited to entities we can comprehend as human or anthropomorphize, it is limited as well. Such a limit was sufficient throughout the majority of human history, as people lived in communities with population sizes well below Dunbar’s number, and did not often influence or interact with those outside these communities. Today, we encounter hundreds or even thousands of unique individuals each day, live in a state with a population of over three-hundred thirty million, and contribute towards a global economy alongside eight billion; our brains are simply overwhelmed. To cope, we generalize other people into groups or classes at the cost of nuance and detail and select individuals and groups to feel empathy for; on its own, this is a natural and harmless emotional impulse. Unfortunately, many tend to conflate their emotional impulses with reality, and will regard the individuals and groups they have chosen to emphasize with as automatically sympathetic and especially worthy of protection, while individuals and those who do not belong to chosen groups are disregarded or seen as nonpersons. This is the cause of tribalism; allegiance to a chosen group above outsiders. Empathy, generally viewed as the impetus of human connection, is ironically the root of political polarization.

Empathy isn’t merely deleterious because it causes polarization. It is a common complaint that politicians, heads of large corporations, and others in positions of great power lack empathy due to their tendency to callously make decisions that cause harm to the millions or billions under their influence for personal or ideological gain. These lamentations take the perspective that our current politicians are incapable of empathy, and the political and social ills occurring under their governance would accordingly be solved if politicians acted with empathy. Such statements have no basis in reality; while individuals who fundamentally and completely lack the capacity for empathy exist, they are incredibly rare and very often have other psychological abnormalities that preclude them from attaining great power for a significant period of time. The vast majority of politicians and powerful individuals have the same capacity for empathy as the rest of us; unfortunately, this capacity is a mere rounding error compared to the swathes of people they influence. A politician who is highly influenced by empathy will enact policies that benefit demographics she feels empathy towards at the expense of demographics she does not, or maintain the material comfort of her family, who she feels empathy towards, at the expense of taxpayers, who she does not. Our emotional impulses are no different than such a politician; we show great concern for a friend's romantic troubles while shrugging at genocide in Sudan. In politicians, whose influence extends beyond the scope of empathy, empathy enables discriminatory policies and corruption.

Allowing empathy to influence political inclinations also increases vulnerability to emotional manipulation. Social issues and the “culture war” dominate the American political landscape, not for their relevance to the average American’s well-being but because of their utility to self-interested politicians and political parties who know such issues will emotionally motivate citizens to vote for them. Official campaign ads aired during the 2024 Presidential Election frequently evoke empathy for sympathetic groups while displaying disdain or fear of unsympathetic ones, in many cases emphasizing these issues above topics salient to the average voter’s well-being. It is trivial to determine how such framing contributes to political polarization; Republicans and Democrats increasingly view each other as immoral, reducing willingness to share ideas or find common ground.

Empathy causes political polarization, handicaps effective governance, and leaves the population susceptible to manipulation. Empathy is tearing our nation apart. The conclusion is obvious: Empathy ought to be eliminated from politics. Theoretically, it is not complicated to implement on an individual basis; when making decisions that will affect large numbers of people, simply identify and disregard emotional impulses while focusing on how each choice will affect you and the population. In practice, such monitoring requires constant vigilance, and convincing significant portions of the population to implement it will be difficult.

I do not argue for the erosion of empathy in everyday life; society would be less functional, less enjoyable, and less compassionate without it. However, empathy’s place in politics has outworn its usefulness, only serving as a basis for conflict with your fellow countrymen and a means by which you may be manipulated. By carefully managing our emotional impulses and making the correct decision rather than the decision that feels good, we may restore effective governance, unify our nation, and repair the damage empathy has caused.

This post was lightly revised from an essay submitted to my college writing class in response to an assignment to explain one's controversial opinion to one's classmates. It received mixed reception.