Abundance

1. Polarization Isn't the Problem, Toxic Systems Are

We are a collection of functional parts whose efforts combine to form a dysfunctional whole.

Systemic dysfunction. The core argument isn't about individual actors but the toxic systems that incentivize destructive behavior. The American political system, comprising everyone from voters to journalists to the president, is filled with rational actors making rational decisions based on the incentives they face.

Flawed logic. The fact that the worst actors succeed so often doesn't prove the system is failing; it proves they understand the mechanisms that make it actually work. This is knowledge we all need if we want to change it.

Drift into failure. Organizations often fail precisely because they succeed according to a narrow range of performance criteria, those for which they are rewarded in their current political, economic, or business configuration. Accidents can occur without anything breaking, anyone making a mistake, or anyone violating the rules they consider relevant.

2. American Politics Is a System, Not a Collection of Individuals

We reduce systemic problems into personalized narratives, and when we do, we obscure our understanding of American politics and confuse ourselves in our theories of repair.

Beyond individual blame. The book shifts focus from individual politicians to the interconnected systems shaping their decisions. While individual politicians are used as examples, they are viewed as puppets of larger forces.

Systemic analysis. The author advocates for a systemic mode of analysis, similar to that used in other fields, to diagnose why the American political system is failing. This approach moves beyond identifying and replacing "broken components" to understanding the complex interactions that lead to dysfunction.

Cycle of disillusionment. Every election cycle, politicians promise to put country over party, but eventually become part of the system, leading to public disillusionment. This cycle fuels political rage and a sense of hopelessness.

3. Identity Politics Is Universal, Not Marginal

A central argument of this book is that everyone engaged in American politics is engaged in identity politics.

Identity's pervasive influence. Identity is not just a tool used by marginalized groups, but a fundamental aspect of all political engagement. It shapes our worldviews and influences our decisions, whether we are conscious of it or not.

Weaponization of the term. The term "identity politics" is often used to diminish and discredit the concerns of weaker groups, while the concerns of stronger groups are presented as more rational and suitable for political debate. This obscures rather than illuminates the role of identity in politics.

Identities in conflict. Political campaigns are often a struggle to determine which identities voters will adopt on election day. Will they vote as members of a particular economic class, religious group, or geographic region? The outcome depends on which identities are most salient and compelling to voters.

4. The South's Racial History Shapes Modern Polarization

The Dixiecrats gave national Democrats the votes to control Congress, and the national Democrats let the Dixiecrats enforce segregation and one-party rule at home.

Dixiecrat dominance. For much of the 20th century, the Democratic Party in the South was an authoritarian enclave that maintained power through voter suppression and racial terrorism. This system was tolerated by the rest of the country in exchange for the South's support of national Democratic priorities.

Civil Rights Act watershed. The Democratic Party's embrace of civil rights in the 1960s shattered its alliance with the Dixiecrats and paved the way for the realignment of American politics along racial and ideological lines. This realignment continues to shape our political landscape today.

Polarization, not extremism. The shift from a system of mixed parties to one of sorted parties has led to increased polarization, but not necessarily increased extremism. The political consensus of the mid-20th century rested on foundations of racial bigotry that most would now find abhorrent.

5. Parties Are More Divided by Identity Than Ideology

As the parties became visibly and undeniably more different, the country became rationally more partisan in response.

Erosion of cross-voting. The practice of cross-voting, once common, has virtually disappeared as voters have become more loyal to their chosen party. This is due to the evaporation of trust in the opposing party.

Negative partisanship. Voters are increasingly motivated by negative feelings toward the opposing party rather than positive feelings toward their own. Fear and disgust are driving political behavior more than hope and change.

Partisan divergence. The agendas of the Democratic and Republican parties have diverged sharply in recent decades, leading to greater awareness of the differences between the parties among voters. This divergence has been particularly pronounced on issues related to race, religion, and culture.

6. Group Identity Trumps Rationality

It’s the victory that seems more important to them.

Tajfel's experiments. Psychologist Henri Tajfel's experiments demonstrated that people will favor members of their own group and discriminate against outsiders, even when there is no rational basis for doing so. This instinct is deeply ingrained in human psychology.

Sports as a proxy. The intense loyalty and rivalry surrounding sports teams provide a clear example of how group identity can override rational self-interest. People attach their happiness to the outcome of games in which they have no material stake.

Political team sport. Political behavior is often driven by group rivalry rather than rational consideration of policy issues. Voters are motivated by a desire to defeat the opposing party, even if it means supporting candidates they don't fully agree with.

7. Media Amplifies Division, Not Just Information

The question isn't why voters have become more partisan as the parties have become visibly more different. Of course, they have. The real question is why the parties have become so different.

Media's role. The media plays a crucial role in shaping political discourse and reinforcing group identities. By focusing on conflict, outrage, and identity signals, media outlets can amplify divisions and make it more difficult for people to find common ground.

Rational partisanship. As the Democratic and Republican parties have become more ideologically distinct, it has become more rational for voters to align themselves with one party or the other. This is because the parties offer clearer choices and represent fundamentally different visions of the country.

Echo chambers. The rise of partisan media outlets has created echo chambers where people are primarily exposed to information that confirms their existing beliefs. This can lead to increased polarization and a distorted view of the opposing side.

8. Demographic Change Fuels Political Anxiety

What we are often fighting about in American politics are group and status identities—fights that are expressed in debates over policies and power but that cannot truly be reconciled by either.

Shifting demographics. The United States is undergoing a period of rapid demographic change, with the white population declining and the non-white population growing. This shift is fueling anxiety among some white Americans who fear losing their historical dominance.

Threat to identity. The election of Barack Obama, the first African-American president, symbolized this demographic shift and triggered a backlash among some white voters. Donald Trump capitalized on this anxiety by promising to "make America great again," a slogan that evoked a nostalgic vision of a whiter, more homogeneous past.

Political realignment. The rise of identity politics has led to a realignment of the American electorate, with white voters increasingly aligning with the Republican Party and non-white voters increasingly aligning with the Democratic Party. This trend is likely to continue as the country becomes more diverse.

9. The American Political System Is Inherently Unstable

The fact that the worst actors succeed so often doesn't prove that the system is failing; it proves that they understand the mechanisms that make it actually work.

Presidentialism's perils. Political scientist Juan Linz argued that presidential systems, like that of the United States, are inherently unstable because they create the potential for conflict between the executive and legislative branches. This conflict can lead to gridlock and even democratic breakdown.

Erosion of norms. The American political system has traditionally relied on informal norms of compromise, tolerance, and moderation to function effectively. However, these norms are eroding as the stakes of political conflict have increased.

Polarization's impact. As political parties have become more polarized, they have become less willing to compromise and more likely to engage in obstructionist tactics. This has led to gridlock, government shutdowns, and a general sense of dysfunction.

10. The Solution: Democratization and Balance

The question for the engaged citizen is: What does supporting this political position say about me?

Democratization. One approach to addressing the challenges of polarization is to make the American political system more democratic. This could involve reforms such as abolishing the Electoral College, implementing proportional representation, and expanding voting rights.

Balance. Another approach is to create a system of checks and balances that prevents any one group from dominating the political process. This could involve reforms such as strengthening the power of the minority party in Congress and creating a more independent judiciary.

Identity awareness. Individuals can also play a role in mitigating the effects of polarization by becoming more aware of their own identities and biases. By recognizing the ways in which our identities shape our political views, we can become more open to different perspectives and more willing to engage in constructive dialogue.

Last updated: April 3, 2025