I learned that some people are using AI to generate a summary of my book! I therefore decided to compete with AI by writing my own summary, which I am calling Over the Cliff Notes.
Warning: If you read only the Over the Cliff Notes, you’ll miss the story of how I threw a chair at a raccoon, and you’ll miss the opportunity for me to ruin a perfectly innocent fairy tale.
But nobody ever reads just the Cliff Notes, right?
How Intolerance and Extremism Happen:
Understanding our Deepest Divides
OVERVIEW
This (short) book is based on the idea that the first steep to bridging our deepest divides is to understand those divides.
PART 1: DEMAGOGUES AND ARTISTS
Demagogues and dictators (a subset of demagogues) frequently lead extremist movements. They often enjoy widespread popular support. One reason is that they claim to (or do) solve a problem that appears unsolvable. If problems don’t exist, ruthless dictators or demagogues create them so that they can position themselves as the only viable solution.
Among other things, demagogues play on people’s fears, particularly the fears of those with authoritarian dispositions. A person with an authoritarian disposition values sameness and order and has difficulty accepting those who are different. Such people seek authority figures or structures that will enforce this sameness. Some authoritarians want all people to have the same ethnicity. Some want all people to hold the same political views. As differences emerge, those with authoritarian tendencies become susceptible to the siren call of a demagogue.
After pointing out the limitations of traditional political labels such as ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative,’ I explain Dr. Karen Stenner’s model of the ‘authoritarian dynamic.’ This dynamic, in a nutshell, argues that as the world becomes more complex and diverse, more people become susceptible to the siren call of the demagogue who plays on their fears. Stenner attributes the world-wide rise of authoritarian regimes to the simple fact that the complexity of our world has exceeded the capacity of many people to tolerate it.
Biological studies show measurable brain differences between people who identify as “liberal” versus “conservative.” This raises the question: Can biology explain our political differences? The answer is complex. While biology isn’t destiny, our brain structures play a role in our political inclinations. This leads to such neuroscientists as Leor Zmigrod, who shows how external factors can push people with certain vulnerabilities toward extremist and inflexible thinking.
This chapter concludes with a discussion of how art can inspire flexible thinking and help us resist the pull of authoritarianism by engaging the more evolutionarily advanced parts of our brains.
Part 2: “THESE ARE THE TIMES THAT TRY MEN’S SOULS”
This section is about the conditions that cause people to feel prolonged panic and the kind of fear that makes them vulnerable to a demagogue’s appeal.
I begin with the conditions at the time of the American Revolutionary War that inspired Thomas Paine to write, ‘These are the times that try men’s souls.’ However, political scientist Murray Edelman argues that, in a sense, all times are the times that trying men’s souls. This is because, since newspaper reading first became widespread, people are informed of events outside their immediate experience. This information is given through symbols, which makes people highly susceptible to political manipulation.
I then offer an overview of American history, including the McCarthy era, the campus protests of the 1960s, and the key pieces of legislation that changed the face of America: the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the Immigration Act. The rapid changes were unsettling to many people, which led to prolonged anxiety.
Radical (far left wing) extremist movements look forward to a more perfect tomorrow. Reactionary (far right wing) movements pine for a mythical bygone era. Reactionary movements long to return to what Bálint Magyar called “the founding conditions.” In the United States, the founding conditions included a mostly Protestant nation ruled by white men. Reactionary movements seek to return us to the founding conditions.
PART 3: THE APPEAL OF AUTOCRACY
This section explores why democracy is inherently difficult and unstable, and how the very difficulty of maintaining a democracy can drive people toward extremist movements. In the words of Andriy Chirovsky, “Democracy is messy. Authoritarianism is neat.” People who cannot tolerate the compromise and constant flux of democratic life may seek the promise of order in the form of autocracy. The hitch, however, is that—for reasons I discuss—autocracy is also inherently unstable.
One dynamic that illustrates democracy’s inherent difficulty is its constant danger of falling into oligarchy, as individuals who acquire power sometimes use it to benefit only themselves. The constant flux of democratic governments is further illustrated by a brief history of the U.S. political parties, showing that change—while often upsetting—is inevitable.
The United States has grown into a large, sprawling, multicultural system with hundreds of alphabet-soup agencies and volumes of regulations, which creates added complications. This takes us back to Dr. Stenner’s theory: the world-wide rise of authoritarian movements has happened because “liberal democracy has exceeded many people’s capacity to tolerate it.” When life or democracy feels too difficult, people look for easy ways to cast blame, and they are easily taught to blame “others,” which quickly leads to extremism and intolerance.
PART 4: RAGE MERCHANTS
Political extremists and would-be autocrats are not the only people who benefit from inciting panic and fear. There is big money to be made in peddling powerful emotions. Constant outrage and panic can lead to instability by pushing people to respond with the more primal parts of our brains.
This takes us to the current information revolution unleashed by the forces of the internet, which is allowing misinformation, rage, and panic to be disseminated at dangerous levels. Much of what passes for “news” is entertainment that confirms our biases, makes us feel good, and has the potential to pull people into ideological spirals.
Tufts University professors Sarah Sobieraj and Jeffrey Berry talk about the Outrage Industry, which has arisen from the current information disruption. The Outrage Industry encourages agent provocateurs. In this fractured media environment, much of what passes for news is commentary and evocative, rage-inducing performances.
All of this is making people more vulnerable to the siren call of a demagogue and more vulnerable to ideological thinking while activating the authoritarian impulses of people who have that disposition.
I conclude by discussing how the Internet, social media, and algorithms are creating what author Eli Pariser calls ‘Ideological filter bubbles.’ These bubbles act as highly efficient conspiracy theory and rage-generating machines. I argue that this incendiary media environment does something more sinister than simply exacerbate polarization: it activates the authoritarian instincts of predisposed individuals, vilifies opposing groups, and ultimately makes us less curious and less free.
Part 5: Social Media Makes It Worse
Political Science Professors Yanna Krupnikov and John Barry Ryan talk about the “other divide.” They argue that the real divide in the United States isn’t between the left and the right; it is between a relatively small group of vocal hyper-partisans and the moderate majority.
The problem is that these hyper-partisans attract disproportionate attention and have re-defined how people talk about politics. This contributes to the polarization and drives large numbers of people away from the discussion of politics altogether. This disengagement can have detrimental consequences for a democratic government, which requires an informed and engaged electorate.
I conclude with examples of how the fragmented media environment allows conspiracy theories take root and spread on both sides of the political spectrum, thereby adding to the confusion and division.
TOWARD A MORE ENLIGHTENED TOMORROW
I conclude the book by reflecting on how understanding these dynamics can help strengthen democracy and restore a healthier public discourse.