Afrequent counterpoint to passionate political leaning speakers among critics is calling them ‘bigots’ or just obtuse.
However, a study by the University of Nebraska found that some people are actually biologically disposed to have fundamentally different political views.
Neuroscientists came to this conclusion by testing patients’ physiological arousal to a liberal and a conservative speaking, respectively.
The same pattern continued: liberals displayed more positive arousal for the liberal politicians they liked, while conservatives displayed more negative arousal for the liberal politicians they disliked.
What are the implications of this?
Firstly, it gives reason to harsh political critics, politician or comedian, to tolerate vast differences between what we usually consider as “extreme” sides such as liberals and conservatives. An example of this is the quarrel over same sex marriage.
Acknowledging that an additional variable in anti-same sex marriage views may be an innate, cognitive variation can waver criticism that assumes people with those views are solely interested in maintaining a singular sexual orientation—an environment variable.
Thus, these fundamentally different views should be accepted and not be attacked as bigotry or an uninformed viewpoint (however, in certain cases, it may be just that).
As cliché as it may sound, politicians should draw a greater focus toward finding a middle ground between the views as opposed to standing by their political attitude, attacking those who disagree and continuing to increase polarization in America.
The simple fact is that there is no beating either fundamental view past the campaign and election.
What is garnering any of the Republican candidates victories now is the demographic majority in each respective state that caters well to their fundamental view.
However, if the winner of the nomination or Obama expects to transcend across a myriad of cultural divisions in all 50 states, he needs to find that middle ground. So how does he, or any other politician, find that middle ground? He needs to adopt a compromising mindset.
A study by Amy Gutmann, political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and Dennis Thompson, political philosophy professor at Harvard University, articulated the key ideas that make up a compromising mindset.
First is principle prudence. If Democrats and Republicans stick to their principle tenacity, it gives privilege to the status quo staying.
Compromise is a pragmatic recognition that a compromise is the only way something significant will be accomplished.
Second is mutual respect. There is often mutual mistrust among the polar ends of the political spectrum—an attitude that only makes politicians motivated to defeat their opponents and their principles.
Tolerating the fundamental differences among politicians is a key sentiment in this mindset; it is what allows one to negotiate without an ill motive.
Last and mostly importantly is accepting the nature of compromise itself—the inherent mutual sacrifice and subsequent vulnerable criticism.
The political culture needs to embrace tolerance and herd compromise as this is the only constructive path to progress.