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.
[…]
For instance, there is widespread support for high-quality health care that is accessible to all and for stronger gun-control regulations.
[…]
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.
[…]
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.
[…]
“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,” writes Lawrence Torcello, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology.
There is a big difference between saying 2 people have shared values, and saying that 2 people have similar political views, goals in life, etc.
“They both want a legal path to citizenship for immigrants”
Sure, but one group only wants that for a small number of specific types of immigrants (e.g. high “value” immigrants with specialized skills), and another group wants that for basically anyone who isn’t a rapist (I am in the second group, to be clear).
“They both want their kids to have good opportunities in life”
But one sees that as a zero-sum proposition, where someone else’s kid getting a good job means their kids can’t get that job, and see that as a normal part of life, and another group will see it as a failure to actually provide on the promise of that opportunity.
“A majority of people acknowledge anthropocentric climate change”
But one group is unwilling to change legislation in ways that will overtly impact their lifestyles in order to counter it, and another wants massive legislative updates in order to rein in the (lifestyle) companies most responsible.
If I had to put a label to the problem, if say it’s an intrinsic issue of individualism versus collectivism.
If you abstract end goals/ values high enough, everyone wants the same thing, but that is hugely deceptive to the reality of our divisions, which are about what those values should look like in implementation.