Post

‘Polarization’ has become the master concept for diagnosing our current democratic crisis. But this is not polarization. It is the radicalization of the political right. By misdiagnosing it, we risk becoming complicit in the crisis. 🧵 Just out in Perspectives on Politics doi.org/10.1017/S153...

The concept of 'polarization' comes from physics. 🔵🔴 It describes two symmetric poles. 📍↔️📍 Moving apart in space. ⬅️➡️ Mutually pushing each other in opposite directions. This metaphor has come to shape how we understand democratic crisis. But every part of it is wrong.

The appeal of the concept for academics is easy to understand. It offers the appearance of neutrality. Equal responsibility. Like journalism’s "both sides" logic, it lets us diagnose political crisis while appearing detached, balanced and scientific.

But consider the first assumption: 🔵🔴 symmetry. Empirical research shows that the crisis has been driven overwhelmingly by shifts on the political right: authoritarianism, election denial, conspiracy theories, norm-breaking and tolerance of political violence. That is not two poles moving apart.

One side trying to dismantle democratic institutions, and the other trying to stop them, are not symmetrical political movements. Calling this "asymmetric polarization" does not solve the problem. A concept built around two poles has to be stretched until it means its opposite.

Second: 📍↔️📍 space Polarization imagines politics as positions on a line. People and parties move left or right, and polarization grows as the distance between their positions increases. But today's political transformation is not a divergence along a shared ideological scale.

Among right-wing elites, the rules of the game are now at stake. Rejecting election results, capturing courts and media, and abandoning democratic restraint are not "more extreme positions." The shift is from competing within democracy to seeking to dismantle it. Distance is the wrong metaphor.

Among voters, the central dynamics are not about shifting opinions. They are about identities hardening. Loyalty to a leader. A sense of threat. A division between "the real people" and the enemies said to threaten them. That is not merely movement along an ideological line.

Finally: ⬅️➡️ mutual repulsion. Polarization implies that the two sides push each other apart. But again, the evidence often shows the opposite. The rise of the radical right has produced a gravitational pull. Mainstream parties are pulled toward it, adopting its issues, frames and positions.

“Radicalization” offers a better framework. It is directional and asymmetric. It asks how identities harden. How leaders construct existential threats. How norm-breaking spreads. How groups escalate. How unthinkable ideas enter the mainstream. It describes the process we are actually seeing.

Why does it matter what term we use? Because diagnoses imply remedies. If the problem is polarization, the solution is civility. Dialogue. Lowering the temperature. Finding common ground. Compromise. But what if the problem is right-wing radicalization?

Concepts are never politically innocent. We must call things what they are. It's not polarization; it's the radicalization of the political right. Open Access: doi.org/10.1017/S153... @poppublicsphere.bsky.social

I absolutely agree with you on the importance of terminology which is why I still think it is problematic that you use misinformation when you actually mean propaganda. bsky.app/profile/emma...

I do not understand why you are redefining misinformation to mean the same as an existing more widely recognised concept for the meaning you want to convey. It's problematic because misinformation already has another meaning which is not exclusively strategic. bsky.app/profile/pett...

I like your thesis in general. I'm curious about the US case though. I've read conflicting takes on which party has polarized most in terms of policy positions (obviously not democratic proces). Is there a clear answer?

You can't easily separate policy from process as many of the attempts to erode the process are done through policy. Not all of which survives the legislature or courts but they still try. 1/2

I'd love to hear this, where are the Democrats evenly vaguely as radicalised as the Republicans? Are you referring to a few softball socialised efforts that in Australua or Western Europe would be the stance of RW moderates or even centre right. The US is broken.