Philippa Kaur

Billionaires played an unprecedented role in the 2024 US elections, with 150 of the world’s wealthiest families contributing nearly US$2 billion (£1.57 billion) trying to influence the outcome. This included donations from the likes of Elon Musk (US$133 million for the Republicans) and Michael Bloomberg (US$45 million for the Democrats).

It was a big spend – but from their perspective, a very affordable one. The US$2 billion sum represents just 0.07% of their collective wealth.

Many of those donors were very open about their political spending. But it has also been claimed that some extremely wealthy people often engage in “stealth politics” in the US – seeking to influence policies that may conflict with the majority’s preferences, without attracting public attention.

Tactics might include covert lobbying and gaining private access to public officials, which largely go unnoticed. And even though it is hard to establish exactly how much political influence the elites really have, there is evidence which suggests that US government policy is disproportionately shaped by the preferences of the wealthy.

Ordinary citizens, meanwhile, exert minimal influence – yet effectively pay higher tax rates than the richest Americans.

So it is perhaps easy to see why some question the fundamental fairness of the country’s economic and political systems.

One option for change could be new legislation that focuses on areas like campaign funding and media regulation. This might create a greater separation between money and politics, which could in turn lead to greater equality in political influence. This separation is far clearer elsewhere, and may be one of the reasons why in other countries, the preferences of poorer people seem to affect government policy.

But the apparent political power afforded to billionaires has led some to propose bolder changes. Philosopher Ingrid Robeyns, for example, has made the case for “limitarianism”, which argues for a cap on individual wealth to safeguard democracy and curb inequality (among other goals).

A related idea links limitarianism to billionaires’ political influence, suggesting that the super-rich should face a stark choice. Either they should accept a 100% tax on wealth above a certain threshold, or forfeit certain political rights, such as party donations or standing for office.

These proposals face their own criticisms, including concerns that limiting wealth could negatively affect economic growth and innovation. But they still form part of an ongoing discussion about how to balance individual wealth accumulation with the needs of democratic systems and the principle of economic fairness.

Public opinion

But what do voters think?

One study suggests that most Americans favour higher taxes on the ultra-rich while hinting at widespread public misconceptions about the lives of many billionaires. When they learn more about how luxurious those lives really are, support for taxing the ultra-rich increases significantly.

So perhaps greater public awareness of the realities of extreme wealth would shift attitudes further in favour of policies geared to more distribution of the country’s wealth.

There also seems to be broad support for policies like President Biden’s billionaire minimum income tax, which seeks to impose a minimum 25% tax rate on billionaires’ income and their assets. California’s “extreme wealth tax”, a proposal for a new tax for those worth over US$50 million, also appears popular.

Beyond tax policy, one of our recent working papers explores public attitudes toward limiting billionaires’ wealth. Our findings indicate that many Americans – regardless of political affiliation, and even in a hypothetical situation where inequality is significantly reduced – support wealth caps.

Our study also suggests that people who support wealth caps are concerned about the effects of wealth concentration on economic, political and environmental systems.

Washington and wealth.
Ceri Breeze/Shutterstock

That said, we do not expect such caps being part of the next US president’s plans. After all, Trump’s previous tax cuts were said to have overwhelmingly helped the richest.

But as the likes of Elon Musk become more openly involved in politics their influence is becoming more visible. And this increased visibility could attract more public scrutiny and even a backlash.

Then, ideas like wealth caps and higher top tax rates may gain traction as more Americans question the legitimacy of an economic system that allows a tiny elite to wield disproportionate power. And perhaps with their recent expensive interventions aimed at picking the next occupant of the White House, the ultra-wealthy may have inadvertently strengthened the case for sweeping reforms aimed at limiting their power and wealth. More

If you’ve ever wondered how the right-wing media ecosystem operates and why it’s effective, try viewing it as a form of improvisational theater or improv.

In the wake of the 2024 U.S. elections, everyday people and political pundits alike have been trying to make sense of the results and the related observation that many Americans seem to be experiencing very different realities. These realities are shaped by very different media ecosystems.

Democrats tend to trust institutional media and network news more than Republicans. In contrast, Republicans have developed what they see as a more trustworthy and explicitly partisan alternative media ecosystem that has rapidly evolved and flourished in the internet era.

Cultivating robust alternative media has been a political strategy of the right for decades. Given the interactive nature of social media and ongoing investments by the right in digital media, the right-wing media ecosystem has become a highly participatory space filled with influencers, political elites and audiences.

These players engage in year-round conversations that inspire and adapt political messaging. The collaborations are not tightly scripted but improvised, facilitated by the interactivity of digital media.

For all these reasons, we, as researchers of information ecosystems and influencer culture, find it useful to think of right-wing media as a kind of improv theater. This metaphor helps us understand the social and digital structure, culture and persuasive power of right-wing influence, which is reshaping politics in the U.S. and around the world.

Elements of improv in right-wing media

Influencers are the performers in this real-life improv show that plays out on a stage of social media newsfeeds, podcasts, cable newsrooms and partisan online media outlets. The performers include political pundits and media personalities as well as a dynamic group of online opinion leaders who often ascend from the audience to the stage, in part by recognizing and exploiting the dynamics of digital media.

These influencers work together, performing a variety of roles based on a set of informal rules and performance conventions: sharing vague but emotionally resonant memes, “just asking questions” to each other, trolling a journalist, “evidencing” claims with data or photos – sometimes taken out of context – all the while engaging each other’s content.

Just as in improv, performers work daily to find a game from their audience, internet forums and each other. The “game” in improv is a concept or story with a novel element around which a performance revolves. Once a compelling game is found, performers “raise the stakes,” another improv concept where the plot intensifies and expands.

Performers follow a loose script, collaborating toward a shared goal. Digital media environments provide additional infrastructure — the platform features, networks and algorithms — that shapes the performances.

Signature elements of improv include building on audience input and reacting to the other performers.

Their performances, both individual and in interaction with each other, help influencers attract and curate an audience they are highly in tune with. As in improv shows, the political performers may use a technique called a callback: referencing a previous line, exchange or game that the audience is familiar with. Or performers might react to calls from an engaged audience that cheers, jeers and steers the actors as the show unfolds. The audience may also prompt an entire skit by bringing a story to the attention of influencers or politicians.

From this perspective, influence doesn’t just flow from influencers on stage and out to the audience, but also flows from the audience to the influencers. These dynamics make the right-wing media ecosystem extremely reactive. Feedback is instant, and the right “bits” get laughs and likes. Influencers — and political leaders — can quickly adapt their messaging to their audiences’ tastes, preferences and grievances, as well as to the events and trends of the day, unencumbered by the lag of traditional news media.

Actors and audiences in right-wing media also engage in transgressive, controversial or even offensive bits, as they test the boundaries of their shared tastes, expectations and — for the political performers — ideologies.

Like a lot of improv shows, these performances feel intimate and authentic. Audience members can talk to the performers after and sometimes during the show. They can also be invited “on stage” when an influencer elevates their content.

It may be just for a single scene, but there is also opportunity for lucky, savvy or persistent contributors to become part of the theater of influencers. This increases the motivation to participate, the excitement and the sense among audience members that they are truly part of the show.

‘They’re eating the pets’

One example of right-wing media as improv came in fall 2024 when then-candidate Donald Trump baselessly claimed from a debate stage that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were stealing and eating pets.

Prior to Trump referencing them, rumors of pet-eating had been circulating in local Springfield Facebook groups. These claims were amplified when a local neo-Nazi leader discussed the issue in a recorded town hall meeting, which circulated in apps like Telegram and Gab. Influencers who monitor these channels elevated the story, finding a new game with a novel element.

A Reddit post of a photo of a man holding a bird walking down the street was taken out of context by influencers and falsely used as “evidence” of immigrants eating pets. Memes, particularly those made by artificial intelligence, started spreading rapidly, catching the attention of politicians including Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene, who shared them. This raised the stakes of the improv game by tying these smaller memes to a larger political narrative about needing to stop migration at the southern border.

The improv act reached its zenith when Trump and then vice presidential candidate JD Vance elevated the claims during the week of the September debate. They presented the claims with both seriousness and a bit of a tongue-in-cheek awareness that the point of the story was not necessarily about immigrants but about the attention the narrative garnered. Vance even acknowledged the whole thing could “turn out to be false.” Veracity was not the point of this improvisation.

Then-candidate Donald Trump elevated baseless claims of immigrants eating pets, a false story that bubbled up through the right-wing media ecosystem.

Growing body of research

The metaphor of right-wing media as improv emerged through research, conversation and collaboration facilitated by the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, where we work.

One of us, Kate Starbird, and colleagues studied the role of political influencers in election-denying rumors after the 2020 election, finding right-wing political campaigns to be participatory efforts that were largely improvised. In related work, media researcher Anna Beers described how a “theater of influencers” on the right could be identified through their interactions with a shared audience.

Doctoral student Stephen Prochaska and colleagues built on sociologist Arlie Hochschild’s work to characterize the production of election fraud narratives in 2020 as “deep storytelling” – telling stories with strong emotional resonance – between right-wing influencers and their online audiences.

In her study of right-wing influencers, one of us, Danielle Lee Tomson, described the performative collaboration between influencers as kayfabe, a performance convention in professional wrestling of wrestlers agreeing on a story arc before a seemingly real wrestling match.

These studies all draw on different theories and apply different methods, but they converge on the ideas of improvisation, style and participatory audiences as integral to the success of right-wing media ecosystems.

A persuasive performance

In political improv, factuality is less important than the compelling nature of the performance, the actors, the big story arc and the aesthetic. The storylines can be riveting, engaging and participatory, allowing audiences to play their own role in a grand epic of American activism.

When considered this way, the persuasive power of right-wing media to everyday Americans comes into fuller focus. When there is a 24/7 chorus of collaborative internet influencers engaging their audiences directly, institutional media begins to feel too far removed and disengaged to have a comparable effect. More

Donald Trump and Elon Musk have apparently become great friends over recent months. Musk poured millions of dollars into Trump’s successful election campaign, and has been a vocal and visible supporter of the president-elect.

In return he’s been given a new job, in joint charge of the new Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), where he will be tasked with streamlining government operations and reducing bureaucracy.

This “department” – actually an advisory group – will aim to cut unnecessary spending and make the general functioning of the US government more efficient. The idea is that within a federal budget of over US$6 trillion, there are opportunities to make some big savings.

Musk’s appointment – like many things he’s involved with – has sparked controversy. The richest man in the world has already said he wants to cut spending by US$2 trillion (£1.6 trillion), and mentioned setting up a “leaderboard for most insanely dumb spending of your tax dollars”.

Some are concerned about the impact he could have on public services. Others fear he will use his position to promote his own business interests.

On the positive side, Musk has a very impressive CV when it comes to big organisations. He has created (or co-created) multi-billion-dollar businesses including Paypal, Tesla and SpaceX. He has founded startups involved in AI (xAI), tunnelling (the Boring Company), and medicine (Neuralink).

And research suggests that much of Musk’s success comes down to a relentless focus on efficiency. He has also been praised for the depth of his analytical thinking and innovative problem solving.

Tesla’s factory in California went from being the least productive car manufacturing plant in the US when it was owned by General Motors, to the most productive under Musk’s ownership. SpaceX has vastly reduced costs in the space cargo business.

So he has form. And Musk is not the first American business leader to offer private sector expertise to the world of politics.

Back in the 1960s, Robert McNamara, former president of the Ford Motor Company, served as secretary of defence under presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. McNamara brought significant innovations to government efficiency which drew on his corporate experience.

He championed cost-benefit analysis and a data-driven approach to decision making, and was keen on reducing bureaucracy and promoting accountability in complex governmental processes. To achieve this, McNamara recruited a team of experts from the worlds of academia and business. Known as the “Whizz Kids”, they brought new perspectives to the White House.

In the UK now, the Labour government’s minister of state for investment is Poppy Gustafsson, a former venture capitalist and tech founder. Its minister for prisons is James Timpson, former CEO of the Timpson Group, a family firm renowned for hiring ex-offenders.

These people – and there are many other examples around the world – were brought into the political sphere because of the knowledge and vision they have demonstrated in the private sector. The hope is their talent and leadership will improve policy and practice.

Data-driven reform

The same must be hoped for Musk: that with his co-leader, Vivek Ramaswamy – a bio-tech entrepreneur and former Republican leadership candidate – he will bring expertise in cost-cutting and innovative strategies. This will probably include comprehensive audits and data-driven approaches to reform.

Critics refer to prior examples of Musk’s approach, such as the mass layoffs and aggressive cost-cutting measures at Twitter (now X), with concerns that there could be similarly drastic reductions in the federal workforce and public services.

But big job cuts were happening across the tech sector at that time. They came in the wake of reduced revenues and a need to reduce bloated workforces and ineffective functions – not unlike the challenges faced by the US government.

Nevertheless, while proponents see Musk as an experienced leader capable of streamlining bureaucracy, sceptics fear the advent of harmful austerity measures that risk disruption to essential public programmes.

Concerns have also been raised about potential conflicts of interest, as Musk’s business empire benefits from government contracts. However, since Doge will operate as an advisory body, concerns over him gaining advantage through any self-dealing seem overblown.

Besides, two of Musk’s companies (SpaceX and Tesla) have been awarded US$15.4 billion (£12.3bn) in federal contracts in the last decade. Perhaps then, success precedes influence rather than the reverse?

Making space travel more economically viable?
Evgeniyqw/Shutterstock

Doge will also be governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which maintains legal and ethical guardrails. And Congress will have the final say over any decisions.

Fears of the worst possible outcome to Musk’s appointment are a natural human response in the face of uncertainty. It is part of the reason that negative headlines get more clicks than positive ones.

It is also true that Musk has aligned himself with a politician who divides opinion like few others. By leveraging his billions of dollars and 200 million followers on X to help Trump to victory, he made it clear which side he was on. And in a highly polarised US political landscape, the anguish about his governmental role may be little more than a knee-jerk reaction from the millions of people whose side he did not choose. More

Now that the elections are over, you might be left feeling exhausted, despondent and disillusioned – whether your preferred candidate won or not. You are not alone.

Survey after survey has found that Americans agree that the political system is not serving them.

Americans say they are angry at the political dysfunction, disgusted with the divisive rhetoric, weary from the lack of options, and feel unheard and unrepresented. I am a mathematician who studies quantitative aspects of democracy, and in my view, the reason for this widespread dissatisfaction is evident: The mechanisms of American democracy are broken at a fundamental level.

Research shows that there are clear mathematical fixes for these malfunctions that would implement sound democratic practices supported by evidence. They won’t solve every ailment of American democracy: For example, Altering Supreme Court rulings or expanding voting access are more political or administrative than they are based in math. Nevertheless, each of these changes – especially in combination with one another – could make American democracy more responsive to its citizens.

Problem: Plurality voting

Plurality voting, or the winner-take-all method, is how all but a handful of the nation’s 520,000 elected officials are chosen. It is also mathematically the worst, because it can give victory to a candidate who does not have majority support. This method is rife with mathematical problems, such as vote-splitting and the spoiler effect, which both deliver victory to less popular candidates.

Solution: Ranked-choice voting

Ranked-choice voting allows voters to put their preferences in order, rather than just registering their top selection.

This system, used in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere around the world, as well is in over 50 jurisdictions in the U.S., including Alaska, New York City and Minneapolis, elects a candidate that has broad support. Because voters are not worried about wasting their votes, this method allows people to show support for third-party candidates even if they don’t win. This method also punishes negative campaigning because candidates can win even if they are some voters’ second or third choices, not just their first choice.

Using mathematical principles and methods, it’s possible to rebalance democracy.
Andrii Yalanskyi/iStock / Getty Images Plus

Problem: Electoral College

The Electoral College is a unique and uniquely archaic mechanism that no other country in the world wants anything to do with. Its legacy of slavery and the Constitution’s framers’ skepticism about the populace being smart enough to make good decisions for themselves is only exacerbated by its many mathematical problems, which give some states’ voters more power than others when electing a president.

Solution: Popular vote

The evidence shows that switching to a popular vote would eliminate those biases. But even if 63% of Americans support getting rid of the Electoral College, history shows that the constitutional amendment required is not likely to happen.

A way to avoid a need for a constitutional change could be the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, currently supported by 17 states, including California and Illinois, and Washington, D.C. It would require the electors from the states in the compact to vote for the winner of the national popular vote. But it does not take effect until enough states join that their combined electoral votes reach the winning threshold of 270. Right now, states with a total of 209 electoral votes back the measure.

Problem: Single-winner districts

Because of winner-take-all voting, congressional and state officeholders don’t necessarily reflect the district’s partisan makeup, giving disproportionate representation to one party.

Solution: Multi-winner districts

Most democracies around the world have geographically larger districts that elect multiple candidates at the same time. Multi-winner districts are designed to achieve proportional representation. Right now, all nine Massachusetts representatives in the U.S. House are Democrats, even though one-third of the state’s voters typically opt for Republican candidates. But if Massachusetts had three congressional districts instead of nine, and each elected three House members, one-third of the seats would go to Republicans, commensurate with the proportion of the state’s Republican voters. Multi-winner districts also effectively eliminate gerrymandering.

South Carolina state Sen. Dick Harpootlian, D-Columbia, questions his Republican colleagues’ new map of congressional districts on Jan. 20, 2022.
Jeffrey Collins/AP

Problem: Party primaries

About 10% of eligible voters cast ballots in congressional primaries. Those voters often represent a fired-up base that can elevate fringe or extreme candidates who go on to run in general races that are often not competitive due to a confluence of factors such as plurality voting and single-winner districts.

The final figures are not yet available for 2024, but this one-tenth fraction of voters effectively decided 83% of congressional seats in 2020. Representatives mold their politics to pander to the demands of that base and can keep their jobs for decades with little effort.

Presidential primaries have their own mathematical flaws that distort the preferences of the voters and reward polarizing candidates who can turn out the base.

Solution: Open primaries, or none at all

A system of open, nonpartisan primaries is employed in California, Colorado and Nevada. Three or four top candidates advance to the general election, which is then conducted using ranked-choice voting. This structure increases voter participation and delivers more representative outcomes.

A simpler solution could be to eliminate primary elections and hold a single, open general election with ranked-choice voting.

A 1913 postcard shows the U.S. House of Representatives in the year its membership was fixed by law at 435.
vintagehalloweencollector via Flickr, CC BY-ND

Problem: Size of the House of Representatives

The very first amendment the framers of the Constitution proposed was one that would have required the size of the House of Representatives to grow as the nation’s population increased. For close contact between officeholders and constituents, they liked a ratio of 30,000 to 50,000 people per House member. Their amendment was never ratified.

The ratio today is 760,000 people per representative. The size of the House is set by law and has been fixed at 435 members since 1913. It is hard to imagine that a representative can speak knowledgeably about so many constituents or understand their collective needs and preferences.

Solution: Make it bigger

To reduce the ratio, the House would need to be bigger. With a national population over 337 million, James Madison’s preference would require more than 6,700 House members. That’s unwieldy. Most democracies either intentionally follow or seem to have naturally settled on a different formula, in which the size of the legislature is about equal to the cube root of the country’s population.

For the U.S., that number is currently nearly 700, which would put the population-to-representative ratio at 475,000-to-1. This would still upset Madison, but it’s considerably more representative than the current state of affairs.

Could the Capitol handle such an expansion? Architectural studies show that won’t be a problem. More

Uncommon Courses is an occasional series from The Conversation U.S. highlighting unconventional approaches to teaching.

Title of course:

Crossing the Divide

What prompted the idea for the course?

I developed the idea for this course in 2016 during an Amtrak writing residency program. I spent over two weeks crisscrossing the United States via train while working on my 2021 book about the French National Railways and World War II. After binge-watching the country and gabbing with strangers, I knew the train would be the coolest classroom. I wrote some articles about its value for Smithsonian magazine.

The increasing polarization and the then-upcoming U.S. presidential election made May 2024 the perfect time to invite graduate students studying peace, conflict and justice to join me.

Students visited the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala.
John Coletti

What does the course explore?

Students met two times at the Kroc School of Peace Studies within the University of San Diego to discuss our forthcoming two-week trip’s scheduled stops and assignments, which would include talking with strangers, different readings, keeping a journal and producing individual blogs.

We rode Amtrak trains between states and rented vans to move about within states. We departed from San Diego’s Old Town Transit Center, heading first to Los Angeles to visit Homeboy Industries, the largest gang rehabilitation program. Then, over the course of two weeks, we stopped in Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama and Washington D.C., visiting places that cut across various divides: red and blue, eco-friendly and pro-fossil fuel, as well as urban and rural populations. On the train, we got to know each other, made new friends, watched the passing landscape, read, and wrote in our journals.

We then visited Patagonia, Arizona, a 900-person town that has the gift of being one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems in the USA and the curse of resting atop critical minerals about to be extracted for national security. Ecologists say the mining extraction project, known as the Hermosa project, will likely have a significant negative impact on the area’s water supply and endangered species in the region, as well as residents living near the manganese processing plant.

After 26 hours on the train, we arrived in Houston. There we visited the Houston Museum of Natural Science to understand how the petroleum industry explains – or does not discuss – its role in climate change. In New Orleans, we visited the Whitney Plantation, a nonprofit museum on the site of a former slave plantation. This museum tries to educate visitors about the South’s history from the perspective of the enslaved. We also studied the prison conditions at Louisiana State Penitentiary, where incarcerated persons engage in physically harmful forced labor.

In Birmingham, Alabama, we attended a church service at the 16th Street Baptist Church, made famous by the 1963 bombing by white supremacists that killed four girls. In Montgomery, Alabama, we visited the Legacy of Slavery Museum and a lynching memorial.

We ended in Washington, D.C., where we visited the National Archives, which houses the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

In between our stops, we spent time on the train talking to strangers and getting a sense of the country’s vast landscape – both politically and geographically. We also made a short video about the trip.

The class stops in Houston along its two-week, cross-country tour.
Tony Campos, CC BY

Why is this course relevant now?

According to the Pew Research Center, the American public remains more deeply and bitterly politically polarized than at any time in the past two decades. There has been an increase in both “ideological polarization,” meaning political disagreement, as well as “affective polarization,” an increased antipathy and animosity toward others with whom we disagree. Some people fear that these divides can lead the country into civil war and eventually cause democracy to fail.

I wanted to explore with students just how polarized the country felt. I also wanted us to react to this polarization by reaching out to others, rather than recoiling.

What’s a critical lesson from the course?

When we rely on our smartphones and televisions to tell us about our country, it’s easy to become afraid and withdraw from public life and to avoid strangers. We did the opposite and found many wonderful people as well as many challenges, such as torturous, forced prison labor, resistance within the fossil fuel industry to acknowledge or respond to its role in climate change, the difficultly of safely extracting critical minerals from fragile ecosystems, and tensions over what U.S. children will learn about the country’s historical practice of slavery.

What materials does the course feature?

Site visits, local newspapers and strangers. Prior to departure they read parts of Monica Guzman’s “I Never Thought of it That Way” to prepare them to be open to new ideas and people. They also read academic articles about polarization and watched a PBS clip about national divides. Students found the 2024 documentary “God and Country,” about Christian nationalism, especially powerful.

Along the way, they read websites of the sites we planned to visit, as well as local newspapers, including the Patagonia Regional Times, Houston Chronicle and The Birmingham Times. Supplementary articles included readings about book bans in Texas.

What will the course prepare students to do?

I want the course to help students feel more confident engaging with strangers and exploring connection, instead of assuming difference. They also become better versed in some of the challenges of our time – including climate change, mining impacts, racial divides, legacies of slavery – as well as approaches to addressing these conflicts. They learned how to seek out different perspectives and embrace complexity without becoming immobilized. Several students dedicated their final capstone project to exploring more deeply the mining impacts in Patagonia, Arizona, and meeting with stakeholders to find ways to lessen the environmental impact of this mining work. More

The United States presents a paradox: Though the media and public opinion suggest it is a nation deeply divided along partisan lines, surveys reveal that Americans share significant common ground on many core values and political issues.

As a political philosopher, I am deeply concerned about the perceived contrast between the public’s shared political concerns and the high level of polarization that is dividing the electorate.

Sharing common ground on key issues

Despite the prevailing narrative of polarization, Americans frequently agree on essential issues.

For instance, there is widespread support for high-quality health care that is accessible to all and for stronger gun-control regulations. Remarkably, many Americans advocate for both the right to bear arms and additional restrictions on firearms.

There is strong support for fundamental democratic principles, including equal protection under the law, voting rights, religious freedoms, freedom of assembly and speech, and a free press.

On critical issues such as climate change, a majority of citizens acknowledge the reality of human-caused climate change and endorse the development of renewable energy. Similarly, support for women’s reproductive rights, including the right to an abortion, is widespread.

Though Republicans tend to be more concerned about the economy when they vote, both Republicans and Democrats rank it highly as a top political priority. Despite a currently strong economy by many standards, however, supporters of both parties believe the economy is performing poorly.

This fact is likely the result of a combination of pandemic-related factors, from reduced spending and increased saving during the height of the pandemic to lingering inflation, partly triggered by the pandemic. Whatever the reason for this shared pessimism over the economy, it clearly helped Donald Trump win the 2024 election.

Overall, Americans have a positive view of immigration. That sentiment has declined in recent years, however, as most Americans now want to see rates of immigration reduced – Republicans more so than Democrats.

Part of the tension in the nation’s thinking about immigration is likely the result of a political culture that favors sensational stories and disinformation over more sober consideration of related issues and challenges. For instance, much of this election’s discourse over immigration was marred by fictional and bigoted accounts of immigrants eating pets and inaccurate portrayals of most immigrants as criminals. It should be evident that even shared political perceptions aren’t always based on good evidence or reasons.

Despite the existence of so much common ground, Americans see the nation as polarized. Shared values and concerns matter little if constant exposure to disinformation makes it nearly impossible for half the population to sort fact from fiction.

Believing there is conflict can itself breed more conflict.
wildpixel/iStock / Getty Images Plus

The effect of perception

The perception of division itself can fuel distrust where common ground might otherwise be found among citizens.

Even with substantial consensus on many issues, the perception of polarization often drives public discourse. This misalignment can be exacerbated by partisans with something to gain.

Research shows that when people are told that experts are divided on an issue, such as climate change, it can lead to increased polarization. Conversely, emphasizing the fact of scientific consensus tends to unify public concern and action.

The perception among U.S. voters that they disagree more than they agree can precede and perpetuate discord. Differing political camps begin to perceive each other as foes rather than fellow citizens.

This continued perception that Americans are more divided on issues than we actually are poses an enormous threat to democracy. The biggest threat is that people begin to see even neighbors and family members who vote differently as enemies. Stress about holiday interactions with relatives who voted differently is reportedly leading some people to cancel family gatherings rather than spend time together.

Yet, Americans are still potential allies in a larger fight to realize similar political aspirations. If people are too busy attacking each other, they will miss opportunities to unite in defense of shared goals when threats emerge. In fact, they will fail to recognize the real threats to their shared values while busily stoking divisions that make them increasingly vulnerable to disinformation.

Volunteering, like these people sorting donated meals for medical patients in Colorado in 2023, can be a way to share priorities and form real connections with community members who have different political views.
Hyoung Chang/The Denver Post

Bridging the gap

Recognizing the public’s shared values is an important step in healing political divides. Philosopher Robert B. Talisse has argued that one way to get started might be refocusing attention on community projects that are nonpolitical but bring together people who don’t normally think of each other as political allies.

This might include, for example, participating in civic or sports clubs, or volunteering to help with local community events. These actions are not overtly politically charged. Rather, they are collaborative in a way that supports community identity rather than partisan identity. It is an exercise in rebuilding civic trust and recognizing each other as fellow citizens, and perhaps even friends, without the tension of partisan politics. Once this trust in each other’s civic identity is healed, it can open a door for meaningful political discussion and understanding of each other’s shared concerns.

If we Americans don’t find ways to recognize our shared values, and even our shared humanity, we won’t be able to defend those values when they are challenged. More

Is it possible to bridge America’s stark political divisions?

In the wake of a presidential election that many feared could tear the U.S. apart, this question is on many people’s minds.

A record-high 80% of Americans believe the U.S. is greatly divided on “the most important values”. Ahead of the election, a similar percentage of Americans said they feared violence and threats to democracy. Almost half the country believes people on the other side of the political divide are “downright evil.”

Some say that the vitriolic rhetoric of political leaders and social media influencers is partly to blame for the country’s state of toxic polarization. Others cite social media platforms that amplify misinformation and polarization.

There is, however, reason for hope.

I say this as an anthropologist of peace and conflict. After working abroad, I began doing research on the threat of violence in the U.S. in 2016. In 2021, I published a related book, “It Can Happen Here.”

Now, I am researching polarization in the U.S. – and ways to counter it. I have visited large Make America Great Again events for my research. I have also gone to small workshops run by nonprofit organizations like Urban Rural Action that are dedicated to building social cohesion and bridging America’s divides. Some refer to the growing number of these organizations as a “bridging movement.”

Their work is not easy, but they have shown that connecting with and listening to others who hold different political views is possible.

Here are three strategies these organizations are using – and people can try to use in their own daily lives – to reduce political polarization:

1. Listen first

Pearce Godwin, a former Republican-leaning consultant from North Carolina, was one of the first “bridgers.”

In 2013, Godwin was doing Christian humanitarian work in Africa. Upset by the vitriol of U.S. politics, Godwin, who had worked on Capitol Hill, wrote a commentary, “It’s Time to Listen,” while on an overnight bus trip across Uganda.

Multiple U.S. newspapers published his column, which called for what is the starting point of most bridging work: People should listen first to understand.

Later that year, Godwin started a nonpartisan and nonprofit organization, the Listen First Project, to promote this message through activities like a 2014 “Listen First, Vote Second” public relations and media campaign.

After Donald Trump won the 2016 election, Godwin decided to expand Listen First work. He established the #ListenFirst Coalition with three other similar organizations: The Village Square, Living Room Conversations and National Institute for Civil Discourse.

Today, this coalition includes over 500 organizations, whose work ranges from one-off dialogue skills workshops to longer-term projects that seek to build social cohesion in the U.S.

2. Be curious, not dogmatic

Braver Angels dates back to 2016 and is another large nonprofit organization that is part of the #ListenFirst Coalition.

On Election Day on Nov. 5, 2024, Braver Angels organized hundreds of pairs of Trump and Kamala Harris supporters to stand at polling stations and demonstrate that dialogue across the political divide is possible. Some held signs that read “Vote Red, Vote Blue, We’re All Americans Through and Through.”

During the past year, I have observed Braver Angels workshops on media bias, public education, immigration and the 2024 election.

Their fishbowl exercise stands out.

Designed by Bill Doherty, a couples therapist and co-founder of Braver Angels, the fishbowl involves a group of Republicans and Democrats talking.

People in the group take turns speaking on a particular political topic, while the others – along with a larger group of observers – listen to what they say without speaking. After peering into this “fishbowl,” each group member discusses what they discovered by listening to the other group. Many mention their “surprise” at points of agreement on certain issues and the thoughtful reasoning behind positions “on the other side” they had previously dismissed.

The exercise illustrates a key starting point of bridging work: Be curious, instead of trying to prove you are right. Learn how someone on the other side of an issue understands and perceives something.

3. Burst out of your bubble

Another key strategy to overcome division is helping people burst out of their bubble. The idea is that people can objectively detach from and examine their assumptions, and then try to explore alternative views outside their social media, news information and community silos.

One #ListenFirst Coalition partner, AllSides, tries to help people do this through a digital platform that shows how the same news of the day is being reported by left, right and center media organizations. It also has an online tool, “Rate Your Bias,” which helps users become aware of their own assumptions.

People can use these tools to compare different stances on issues like federal taxes and civil liberties – and how their own positions line up. People can also search for individual media outlets to see if the majority of other users have rated these organizations as liberal, conservative or center.

When people identify their own biases – which can become evident as they examine the media outlets they like, for example – it can help them become more curious and open. It also helps them move out of the information silos that divide people.

The bridging movement is not without its challenges. People who lean red are sometimes suspicious of these initiatives, which give people information on voting and democracy and can be perceived as having a liberal bias.

Group diversity is also a challenge. Based on my observations, Braver Angels participants tend to be older, white and educated.

And other groups, like #ListenFirst Coalition partner Urban Rural Action, have to spend considerable time and effort getting a diverse range of people in their programs.

But, given America’s stark political divisions, I think there is a clear need and desire for the depolarization work these groups do.

The vast majority of people in the U.S. are concerned about the current state of polarization in the nation. These bridging groups show a way forward and offer strategies to help Americans build bridges across the country’s deepening political divide. More

The spectacular comeback of US president-elect Donald Trump has taken the world by surprise. No doubt people can point to various explanations for his election victory, but in my view, the science of information will pave the way towards deeper insights. Unless the Democrats – and their counterparts around the world – can develop a better understanding of how people receive and reject information, they will never fully understand what happened or successfully fight elections in the future.

There is a fundamental law of nature, known in physical science as the second law. This says that, over time, noise will overwhelm information and uncertainties will dominate. Order will be swamped by confusion and chaos. From a single particle to the whole universe, every system known to science obeys this law. That includes political systems, or societies.

Whenever there is progress in communication technology, people circulate more and more inessential or inaccurate information. In a political system, this is what leads to the noise domination described by the second law.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

In science, the quantity that measures the degree of uncertainty is known as entropy. The second law therefore says that entropy can only increase, at least on average.

While entropy does not reduce spontaneously, it is possible to reduce it by spending energy – that is, at a cost. This is exactly what life is about – we create internal order, thus reducing entropy, by consuming energy in the form of food.

For a biological system to survive, it has to reduce uncertainties about the state of its environment. So there are two opposing trends: we don’t like uncertainties and try to reduce them. But we live in a world dominated by growing uncertainties. Understanding the balance of these two forces holds the key to appreciating some of the most perplexing social phenomena – such as why people would vote for a man who has been convicted of multiple crimes and strongly signalled his autocratic tendencies.

The world is filled with uncertainties and information technology is enhancing the level of that uncertainty at an incredible pace. The development of AI is only propelling the increase of uncertainty and will continue to do so at an unimaginable scale.

In the unregulated wild west of the internet, tech giants have created a monster that feeds us with noise and uncertainty. The result is rapidly-growing entropy – there is a sense of disorder at every turn.

Each of us, as a biological system, has the desire to reduce this entropy. That is why, for example, we instinctively avoid information sources that are not aligned with our views. They will create uncertainties. If you are a liberal or leftwing voter and have found yourself avoiding the news after Trump’s re-election, it’s probably linked to your desire to minimise entropy.

The need for certainty

People are often puzzled about why societies are becoming more polarised and information is becoming more segmented. The answer is simple – the internet, social media, AI and smartphones are pumping out entropy at a rate unseen in the history of Earth. No biological system has ever encountered such a challenge – even if it is a self-imposed one. Drastic actions are required to regain certainties, even if they are false certainties.

Trump has grasped the fact that people need certainty. He repeatedly offered words of reassurances – “I will fix it”. Whether he will is a more complex question but thinking about that will only generate uncertainties – so it’s better avoided. The Democrats, in contrast, merely offered the assurance of a status quo of prolonged uncertainties.

Whereas Trump declared he would end the war in Gaza, Kamala Harris remarked that she would do everything in her power to bring an end to the war. But the Biden-Harris administration has been doing exactly that for some time with little progress being made.

Whereas Trump declared he would end the war in Ukraine, Harris remarked that she would stand up against Putin. But the Biden-Harris administration has been merely sending weapons to Ukraine to prolong the war. If that is what “standing up against Putin” means, then most Americans would prefer to see a fall in their grocery prices from an end to the war.

Some advice is best left unsaid.
Flicker/Number 10, CC BY

Harris argued that Trump is a fascist. This may prove to be true, but what that means exactly is unclear to most Americans.

While Harris’s campaign message of hope was a good initiative, the Democrats failed in delivering certainty and assurance. By the same token they failed to control the information space. Above all, they failed the Americans because, while Trump may well bring an end to the war in Ukraine and Gaza in some form, his climate policy will be detrimental to all Americans, with lasting impacts.

Without understanding the science of information, the blame game currently underway will not bring Democrats anywhere. And there are lessons to be learned for other centre-left governments, like the UK Labour government.

It is not entirely inconceivable that the former prime minister Boris Johnson, encouraged by the events in the US, hopes for a dramatic return to the throne at the next general election. If so, prime minister Keir Starmer must find a way to avoid following the footsteps of Biden and Harris. He must provide people with certainty and assurance. More