In 2015, a Vox article noted that it is now socially acceptable to discriminate based on political affiliation. Some excerpts:
“Political identity is fair game for hatred”: how Republicans and Democrats discriminate
The experiment was simple. Working with Dartmouth College political scientist Sean Westwood, Iyengar asked about 1,000 people to decide between the résumés of two high school seniors who were competing for a scholarship.
The resumes could differ in three ways: First, the senior could have either a 3.5 or 4.0 GPA; second, the senior could have been the president of the Young Democrats or Young Republicans club; third, the senior could have a stereotypically African-American name and have been president of the African-American Student Association or could have a stereotypically European-American name.
The point of the project was to see how political and cues affected a nonpolitical task — and to compare the effect with race. The results were startling. When the résumé included a political identity cue, about 80 percent of Democrats and Republicans awarded the scholarship to their co-partisan. This held true whether or not the co-partisan had the highest GPA — when the Republican student was more qualified, Democrats only chose him 30 percent of the time, and when the Democrat was more qualified, Republicans only chose him 15 percent of the time.
Think about that for a moment: When awarding a college scholarship— a task that should be completely nonpolitical — Republicans and Democrats cared more about the political party of the student than the student’s GPA. As Iyengar and Westwood wrote, “Partisanship simply trumped academic excellence.”
It also trumped race. When the candidates were equally qualified, about 78 percent of African Americans chose the candidate of the same race, and 42 percent of European Americans did the same. When the candidate of the other race had a higher GPA, 45 percent of African Americans chose him, and 71 percent of European Americans chose him.
But Iyengar and Westwood wondered whether these results would really hold outside the laboratory setting. After all, the study’s participants knew their answers were being judged by the researchers. Perhaps discriminating against members of the other party was socially acceptable in a way discriminating against people of the other race simply wasn’t. In other words, perhaps people are willing to show their partisan bias whereas they hide their racial bias, and that was what was behind the results.
…
“Political identity is fair game for hatred,” he says. “Racial identity is not. Gender identity is not. You cannot express negative sentiments about social groups in this day and age. But political identities are not protected by these constraints. A Republican is someone who chooses to be Republican, so I can say whatever I want about them.”
But it didn’t used to be that way.
In 1960, Americans were asked whether they would be pleased, displeased, or unmoved if their son or daughter married a member of the other political party.
Respondents reacted with a shrug. Only 5 percent of Republicans, and only 4 percent of Democrats, said they would be upset by the cross-party union. On the list of things you might care about in child’s partner — are they kind, smart, successful, supportive? — which political party they voted for just didn’t rate.
Fast forward to 2008. The polling firm YouGov asked Democrats and Republicans the same question — and got very different results. This time, 27 percent of Republicans, and 20 percent of Democrats, said they would be upset if their son or daughter married a member of the opposite party. In 2010, YouGov asked the question again; this time, 49 percent of Republicans, and 33 percent of Democrats, professed concern at interparty marriage.
This election has been so cantankerous that it doesn’t matter who wins the election today. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump can expect a rocky presidency. I was listening to Meet the Press Sunday, and they interviewed Newt Gingrich. I admit I am not a Gingrich fan, never have been, due in large part to his role in creating divisions in our country. But once in a while he does speak truth. When moderator Chuck Todd asked what Newt thought, I thought he gave a very interesting answer.
Chuck, “What do we do as a country on November 9th? Because it’s been a rough election and I want to use your words. This is what you said in January 2001 after another very contentious presidential election. You said the following:
‘Most Americans do not find themselves actually alienated from their fellow Americans or truly fearful if the other party wins power, unlike in Bosnia, Northern Ireland, or Rwanda. Competition for power in the U.S. remains largely a debate between people who can work together once the election is over.’
That was America circa 2001 as far as you were concerned. Do you believe that is the case in January 2017?”
Newt, “No. No, I think tragically we have drifted into an environment where if Hillary is elected, the criminal investigations will be endless, and if Trump is elected, it will be just like Madison, Wisconsin with Scott Walker. The opposition of the government employee unions will be so hostile, and so directed, so immediate, that it will be a continuing fight over who controls this country. I think that we are in for a long, difficult couple of years, maybe a decade or more because the gap between those of us who are deeply offended by the dishonesty and the corruption, and the total lack of honesty of the Clinton team, and on their side their defense of unions which they have to defend. I understand that. But that will lead to a Madison, Wisconsin kind of struggle if Trump wins.”
I don’t necessarily agree with some of Newt’s characterizations (and I think he is the cause of many of the partisan divides), but I do agree with him that it really doesn’t matter whether Hillary or Donald wins. It’s going to be a much too partisan and poisonous atmosphere long after this election is over, and we may see endless litigation and impeachment proceedings against both Clinton and Trump. While I’ve been pretty good at navigating disagreements among family members, I have crossed some lines of good taste when discussing the presidential election with some friends and strangers.
We generally have a very light moderation hand here at Wheat and Tares. However, I am going to make a policy on this post that all partisan attack comments will be deleted regardless of who they are directed at. (If you can’t say something nice, go say it somewhere else.) Please comment kindly as a way to begin a conversation that as Ronald Reagan once said it is ok to “disagree without being disagreeable.” Let’s practice the healing of the nation as we talk here.
Have you been guilty of poor, unchristian behavior when discussing the election? What can be done to heal the nation after this election, regardless of who wins today? And will you be voting for Evan McMullin (especially if you live in Utah) or some other third party candidate as a protest of the two bad candidates put forth by the republicans and the democrats?
Wheat & Tares 
I have read that some citizens thought our republic was lost back when the ruffian Andrew Jackson won the presidency from the genteel John Quincy Adams. Emotions were high. But the republic survived. Whoever wins, let’s accept him or her as a one-term president and get on with life.
Yes, I am guilty of poor behavior with this election. My words, characterizations, and stereotypes of Trump supporters have been uncharitable. Most of the time, I just cannot fathom how anyone could vote for him, so I am often left confused. I have hardly spoken to anyone who is an open Trump supporter.
A few people who have decided to vote for him have (wisely) stayed mum to me as they came to their decision. While I haven’t been openly rude in any Trump supporter’s face, my language is much more uncharitable in the presence of individuals who agree with me. I think most people make the wise choice to just not talk politics. I have no problem diving into it headfirst.
I have family in Alabama- I do understand their support of Trump (cue uncharitable speaking). However, I’ve given up on trying to understand why folks in Utah (where I live now) support him. I find it distressing and confusing.
I honesty have no idea on how to heal the divisiveness. Partisan media consumption is rampant and only serves to perpetuate lies, misinformation, disinformation, and validating preconceived biases.
The best thing that I think that can be done for the nation to heal is to not be like me and stop vilifying the opposition. Then, read (legitimate, high-quality) journalism that does not automatically support your point of view. I’m trying to do that and it’s working to some extent. Finally, I think we just all need to stop being angry (starting with me). Anger is a sin and has very little (if any) benefit.
As for voting today, I’m going to vote for McMullin. Though it’s looking like Trump will win Utah anyway, I can hope for McMullin to win Utah and send a message to the nation that we don’t like either candidate. I think the two-party dichotomy is flawed and harmful.
Be careful, there’s a lot of blame in comment 2. I’m looking for reconciliation.: what can we do? What should leaders do?
I’ve been turning off all news channels for two months now. It took about two weeks before I realized how addicted I was to the major 24/7 channels, as well as how much needless angst was being fed into my concept of news. I have felt much calmer and more hopeful in some ways because I meet folks each day as I go about life who are nice as can be and don’t seem to be seeking to vilify anyone according to their political leanings. I get news online from Reuters and others who fill in huge gaps of world events our hyper-campaign-focused media largely ignore, some of which is quite concerning, like the build up of Russian and NATO troops on the borders of Baltic states.
Growing up my folks were staunchly Democrat, but when a Republican was in office we were required to pay the same respect to that president or governor as we would a Democrat. We were never allowed to call the president by his last name–it was always Pres. So-And-So. My parents wrote letters to leaders asking them to support what they thought was good and not support what they thought was bad. Polite and respectful political rhetoric was mandatory in our home. And they taught us to pray for our leaders every day.
No matter who wins, I hope we will be respectful of them because of the office they hold and will reach out by letter/email/etc. to express what we believe is good to support or not to support, telling them why we feel this way in respectful terms. I hope we will pray for the leaders of all nations, and pray for our fellow citizens–especially ourselves–to be nice folks to one another as Americans rather than Dems or Reps, Hillary-ites or Trump-ites or McMillan-items, or what whatever-ites. I hope I can remember that if I don’t understand how someone can support/vote for someone I don’t care for, there are millions who can’t fathom how I see things the way I do either. And I especially hope we can seek to lift up and strengthen rather than tear down the United States of America and all other countries where the children of God reside.
“God bless us, everyone.” May His peace be with us tonight, tomorrow, and all the rest of our days.
I think half the apostles should register as democrats and half as republicans.
Looks like fivethirtyeight.com is monumentally wrong….
Can the nation heal? I guess that depends on whether Trump mocking minorities, talk of deporting minorities, and sexually assaulting women is normalized. If this is who the nation elects, is that because this is who Americans are? If so, then what is the path toward healing?
I suppose almost all Trump supporters are offended by some of the things he has said and done –one can vote for Trump without endorsing everything he has ever said or done. The American electorate, generally speaking, had a binary choice with two unpopular and unlikable candidates. Trump won, fair and square. As I wrote in my comment no. 1 before the voting began, I hope we accept him as President and move forward. I would say the same thing if Clinton had won. The election is over — the process worked — let’s sustain the President.
I’m very sad about the outcome, but so far, Pres Obama, Pres-elect Trump, and Sec. Clinton are modeling reconciliation. Not sure how long it will last, but let the healing begin!
Honestly, I think that what we need to do is stop wondering why lifelong Republicans voted for Donald Trump or why lifelong Democrats voted for Hilary Clinton. Both sides have ammunition against the other and enough ill will to make crossing party lines more unpalatable than their party’s candidate. (Side note: I do wonder what would have happened if the Democratic candidate had been less well known and more perceived as being moderate as opposed to liberal). Instead we should try to understand the odd outcomes in this election from a place of compassion instead of demonization. Namely, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and possibly Michigan. What caused those outcomes? What was different from recent elections? Why would rational people in those states make the choices that they did? This is particularly interesting if previously Democratic voters voted for Trump, but really theses questions should be asked and answered after the hand wringing is done.
While I did not approve of Mr. Trump neither did I approve of Secretary Clinton. I didn’t vote for either. That said, I think I do understand President-elect Trump’s appeal. His promises to change the economic destiny of America and its citizens would have sounded so appealing and so worthy to certain people that they could overlook his less-than-ideal characteristics. (Don’t forget that plenty of us admire actors, singers, and artists, many of whose moral principles are quite different from our own.) I can also understand Secretary’ Clinton’s appeal to her supporters as well, as the first woman from a major party running for president as well as someone who would uphold the more liberal and even compassionate principles marking President Obama’s administration. These individuals looked past Secretary Clinton’s (and her husband’s) long history of questionable and, in some cases, obviously unethical behavior. That said, I have faith in our government institutions (not blind faith but faith) and in the goodness as well as the unbridled ambition of those who work there. I am trying to meet our uncertain future, not with fear, but with a strong belief that America will abide no matter who is president. America will abide.
If the President-elect is able to implement an agenda that brings positive results, some reconciliation will occur. Reagan was elected by a landslide in 1980 and there was talk about divisiveness. But 4 years later, with improvements in the economy and employment, he was re-elected by an even bigger landslide.
MH, I am a big fan of Newt. He was my first choice in the field of presidential candidates when he ran,and I hope he gets a prominent position in the Trump admin. He was, after all, leading the Congress that produced a balanced budget. I don’t believe he created divisions, he exposed them.
It’s another case of just how divided this country is. Once again, it appears the popular vote (which doesn’t count) is overridden by the Electoral College (the only thing that counts). By popular vote, last count I saw showed them nearly tied with Clinton at 47.7% and Trump at 47%. The best we can do is avoid being sore losers and avoid being sore winners. Neither one lost or won by much.
Again, apologies to our friends in other countries. I thought W&T was supposed to be a Mormon-centric blog, not a USAmerican-centric blog? Referring to “the’ nation as if it is the only country that matters….
@naismith
“Referring to “the’ nation as if it is the only country that matters…”
Thanks for that. Also, referring to the LDS church as “The Church” as if it’s the only church that matters.
This post was about the United States. I think that was pretty clear. If it had been about Australia, Great Britain, or Norway, it would have been clear and calling it “the nation” would have been appropriate as well as you need to read “the nation” in context, not out of context.
Not sure what rise you got out of pointing out a petty difference on a post about reconciliation though.
Angela C; very good advice. I wish you could address the people currently burning flags, looting stores, and destroying property.
Mark Gibson: If any of them are W&T readers, they can consider themselves addressed.
@ Mike J
What is said about Trump and his supporters and voters the same , and more, can be said about Clinton and her supporters and voters.
This election was not about Democrats versus Republicans. It was much much more, and against a dangerous group of people.
Thankfully enough people woke up and saw the danger, and understood that the country was on the edge of a precipice, and voted to pull us back a little. The danger is still very much there. If more people do not wake up, like the Trump haters, we will lose America, and our wars will have been for naught and fought in vain, especially WWI and WWII.
So go ahead and bash and lie about Trump and his voters. His voters, who saw through the BS, saved your backsides, for now.
We are not born with hate it is something that is fostered and nurtured in our homes. It has now been provoked and encouraged by the president-elect. The news and videos that are on the news today are disturbing because this hatred and divisiveness has been unleashed in our schools. What do we tell our children when they come home In tears because they hear chants of, “build the wall and white is right!” This is the time for trump to stand up and tell these people to stop. HE is the one who just two days ago said that the nation needs to unite. I pray that was not just more of his rhetoric. HE needs to stop his supporters now! The nation lowered their moral standard, but that cannot continue to be the standard. I want to believe that Americans are better than that.
I think back to Sept 2009 Obama’s first year in office. Kids were going back to school and he was going to give a speech to school children. Well, what an uproar that caused in our school district! A school board member wrote an letter to the Superintendent threatening any teachers who allowed their students to view Obama’s speech. Parents were concerned their children would be part of a “captive audience,” and indoctrinated. In the end , no school children saw his speech. Eventually, the school board member was not re-elected.
Trump is a wild card–all over the map. I find it hypocritical that people measure Hillary by a different yardstick than anyone else. We had 55,000 pages of Hillary emails to examine and not even a single tax return from Donald Trump. But we did hear what came out of his mouth and that was pretty disturbing.
Hold on folks–it is going to be a very bumpy ride. “We” (not me) elected a novice to do the most important job in our country.
Trump was willing to do what Romney was not: embolden the racists and xenophobes in our country in order to win an election. That’s the difference between his results and Romney’s. When you give that part of the population the belief that their day has come, that they can do what they want without consequences, you enter a dark time. We need to hope that he can put the genie back in the bottle.
Angela c
Another way to look at it is Trump won the popular vote in all the red States.
I’m thankful that my family lives where we are. People voted for who they wanted, and the next day continued their lives just like days before. No riots in a very racially/politically diverse area. Schools/Cities that honored Veterans three days later. I didn’t realize we had it so good. It seems like we could teach others around the country a few things.
I agree with Mark Gibson’s idea that if Trump can accomplish positive things, some reconciliation will naturally occur. Trump already seems to be backpedaling a little bit on the Obamacare thing, and Newt Gingrich recently called the idea of making Mexico pay for a wall unrealistic, but nevertheless a good “campaign device.” I don’t think anyone can predict what Trump will do.
If people keep perpetrating hate crimes using his election as permission, those targeted groups will never trust him. It’s possible Trump could choose to distance himself more from the perpetrators since he’s not depending on their votes anymore. Violent protests by anti-Trumpers de-legitimizes the entire movement, which pushes people to the Trump side.
All I know is that I have a small group on my Facebook feed calling political opponents bigots and racists (and more), and a bigger group on my Facebook feed calling political opponents cry-babies and sore losers (and more). A lot of times the polarization is coming from members of the same immediate family. Reconciliation won’t be coming for awhile. Yay, family get-togethers for the holidays….
‘Campaign device’, or lie? When did we stop valuing truth tellers and invite liars to represent us? Are we now happy to be a ‘post truth’ society?
I should add to my comment about Trump putting the genie back in the bottle that even if he can’t, it’s up to ALL of us to put that genie back in the bottle. And then smash that bottle.