Political polarization is treated across several episodes of The Bob Zadek Show as a defining and worsening feature of American politics, though the sources differ on its causes, its measurement, and whether it can be reversed. Guests range from a law professor describing the mechanics of party coalitions to a social psychologist calling polarization an irreversible trend, and the proposed responses range from electoral reform to parenting advice.
The “U-shaped curve” and the changing party basket
In a 2017 episode on climate change, Richard Epstein offered an account of polarization as a change in how political positions are bundled. He argued that when a voter chooses a candidate, that candidate holds positions on many issues at once, and the voter must decide whether to accept the whole package. Epstein said that fifty or sixty years earlier there was significant overlap between the Democratic and Republican parties, with liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans and bipartisan activity, particularly on foreign affairs. He contrasted the elections of Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, which he said did not put the country in turmoil.
What changed, in Epstein’s account, is that the items in the basket are no longer randomly assorted. A progressive’s positions now align with one another, and a conservative’s do too, so that two candidates present opposite positions across nearly every issue. Epstein described the Democratic Party as having moved to the left and the Republicans, under Trump, as having moved away from traditional free market, pro-growth, internationalist policies toward a more hardline adversarial stance. The result, he said, is that instead of a bell-shaped curve in which a Democratic win moves policy slightly left and a Republican win slightly right, there is a U-shaped curve: a Democratic victory moves policy all the way in one direction, and a Trump victory could move it all the way in the other. Because voters believe the outcome of an election will affect everything, Epstein argued, they invest more moral energy in it, including denunciation of the other side, and global warming becomes a powerful card in that conflict, with one side calling it a hoax and a fraud and the other saying it is bringing the universe to an end. Richard Epstein on Climate Change (2017)
Polarization as an irreversible trend
Jonathan Haidt, in a 2018 episode, treated polarization as one of several trends that are almost all irreversible. He listed social media, political polarization, and rising competitiveness to get children into college as trends that are not going away, and said that if nothing is done, things will get worse, with depression rates going up and conflict on campus increasing. He said the political system is in big trouble and that polarization will get worse, and he did not expect much progress there. Instead, Haidt argued that people must adapt themselves and their institutions, including corporations and universities, for life in a time of incredible political polarization, fake news, and outrage stories.
Haidt identified two areas of hope. The first was parenting and teaching: he said parents and teachers are realizing something is going very wrong and are looking for ways to change, and he recommended LetGrow.org, a site started by Lenore Skenazy, who wrote Free-Range Kids, for ideas on free play, recess, and community limits on internet time. The second was colleges, where he recommended that every university adopt the Chicago Principles on freedom of expression, under which the university provides a platform and does not take sides in arguments. He also mentioned OpenMindPlatform.org, a program he developed with Caroline Mehl and others to teach moral psychology and skills for discussing politics and divisive issues so that discussions bring light rather than heat. [[episodes/jonathan_haidt_on__the_coddling_of_the_american_mi|Jonathan Haidt on The Coddling of the American Mind (2018)]]
Distrust of government and the politics of persona
A 2019 episode with John McGinnis approached polarization through the lens of public distrust. Bob Zadek observed that dislike and distrust of government in all forms is profound across the country, that polls asking about faith in Congress and faith in government show the country despises government, and yet a movement wants more of the thing it despises. McGinnis agreed and called this one of the rays of hope, but said his concern was how it intersects with the current president. He noted that most people do not focus on the details of politics and that a president’s reelection is largely a referendum on the president, so voters who would dislike a program if they thought about it may not focus on it. He gave the example of the post office failing to deliver packages as a reason people might not want government more involved in healthcare.
McGinnis said it is conceivable that someone like Sanders could be elected despite core policies that are likely unpopular, and that even if such policies would not get through Congress, a lot can be done through the administrative state to restructure the country. He said his greatest reservation about President Trump was not his policies, though he disliked some such as trade policies, but the way Trump talks: McGinnis said the president squanders the dignity of his office and makes some people dislike him just because they focus on that, and that the president is supposed to act in a more dignified manner than the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania does. Here Comes the Storm (2019)
Social media, identity politics, and the marketplace of ideas
In a 2019 episode on social media censorship, Bill Ottman argued that Facebook was never totally pro-free expression and that Twitter, once more open in its content policy, has been getting worse. He said Twitter’s slogan used to be “the free speech wing of the free speech party,” and that marketing materials from ten years earlier bragged that the company hardly moderated content. Ottman said Twitter has since been dragged into a new policy related to advertisers and political interests, and that its policy is political, because what is hate speech to one person is not hate speech to another. He cited a Joe Rogan interview with Tim Pool and Jack Dorsey in which Tim Pool pointed out that it is against Twitter’s policy to misgender somebody and that people have been banned for saying a man is not a woman. Ottman connected this to political polarization and the identity politics game, and said he did not know how the company can last doing this because it is so inconsistent and the hypocrisy is showing itself. Social Media Censorship (2019)
Filter bubbles and the search for solutions
A 2019 episode framed polarization as a problem Bob Zadek had spent years worrying about. Zadek said many observers believe polarization is worse than it has ever been, that he does not know if that is true or how to measure it, and that he doubts it is worse than at other points in American history, but that whether it is the worst or second or third worst is hardly the issue because it is nevertheless bad. He distinguished disagreement on political solutions, which he called healthy and productive, from polarization that creeps into the personal: ad hominem attacks, vindictiveness, and the splitting of friendships and family relationships. Zadek said politicians, pundits, and media figures seem to prosper and thrive on polarization, which he called the fertilizer in which they grow their money, attention, and influence, and that it is profoundly unhealthy.
Zadek introduced guests Joan Blades and John Gable as having found what he considered the first really sensible solution to the problem. He described their two concepts, Living Room Conversations and AllSides.com, as a way to turn down the rhetoric and the heat and to get people with differing or opposite political beliefs to get along. He said the approach is one everybody in America who cares can participate in. Popping the Filter Bubble (2019)
Structural explanations and reform proposals
A 2020 episode with Lee Drutman discussed the two-party system and what the episode description calls the current “doom loop” of polarization, which Drutman argues is a modern phenomenon resulting from the nationalization of politics. Drutman proposes structural reforms including proportional representation and multi-member districts to create a more representative multi-party democracy. The episode also lists ranked-choice voting, the House of Representatives, and parliamentary systems among its topics. Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop (2020)
A 2023 episode with Tom Campbell discussed the Common Sense Party, described as a third-party movement in California aimed at breaking the Democratic-Republican duopoly. The discussion covered institutional barriers to third parties such as campaign finance laws and ballot access, and Campbell’s vision for a more centrist, independent-minded political landscape. The episode lists the Forward Party and education reform among its topics. Moving California Forward with the Common Sense Party (2023)
Polarization and social trust
In a 2020 episode, Bob Zadek asked Kevin Vallier why social trust should have a declining or increasing trend at all, given that it is bilateral and has no external force. Vallier called it a powerful mystery and said that across the hundred or so countries where surveys are done, social trust is very stable; Sweden, the most trusting country in the world, has been so for forty years, and its move from democratic socialism to a more capitalist welfare state had no effect on social trust. He said some people argue economic inequality lowers social trust, but other countries with rising inequality have not seen trust decline, so many potential culprits are unknown.
Vallier offered several possible causes: younger generations have not had a national unifying event, they spend more time alone and less time in face-to-face interaction, and they are less religious and therefore less likely to interact with people at church and in charitable activities. He also said increased attention to certain kinds of social conflict makes people less trusting because they see relations of oppression, real or unreal. He said political polarization is part of what is reducing social trust, and that the fall in social trust corresponds fairly closely to the increase in political polarization. Vallier described two developing cultures, the red tribe and the blue tribe, living in different parts of the country, wearing different clothes, with the reds going to church and the blues usually not, the reds driving certain cars and the blues different ones, the reds eating meat and the blues shopping at Whole Foods. He said people may think they can trust Democrats and independents but not someone really conservative. He also said elites are becoming more ideological, that religious fundamentalism is being replaced by political fundamentalism, and that top politicians distrust and hate each other and do not spend time together except to fight, patterns that filter into society more broadly. He cautioned that this is not entirely guesswork but needs more empirical work. Mandatory PPE (2020)
Across episodes: no single arc
The episodes do not show a single developing argument so much as a series of separate treatments. Epstein in 2017 and Haidt in 2018 both describe polarization as a structural condition, but Epstein locates it in the bundling of party positions while Haidt treats it as one irreversible trend among several. Zadek in 2019 frames it as a problem he has long worried about and presents Blades and Gable’s approach as a solution, while Drutman in 2020 and Campbell in 2023 propose structural and third-party reforms. Vallier in 2020 connects polarization to declining social trust. The excerpts show no shared conclusion and no episode that responds directly to an earlier one.
What the sources do not cover
The excerpts do not establish a common definition or measure of polarization, and Zadek himself says he does not know how to measure it or whether it is historically unprecedented. Several episodes are represented only by descriptions or by fragments, including the Drutman and Campbell episodes, so their arguments are known only in outline. The sources do not report whether any of the proposed reforms were adopted or what effect they had. They also do not resolve the disagreement between Epstein’s account of changing party coalitions and Haidt’s treatment of polarization as an irreversible trend.