Political polarization on every issue is something everyone here is totally aware of. It's so obvious, in fact, that it's even finally beginning to penetrate the consciousness of the geniuses advising on Democratic and progressive policy infrastructure.
David Roberts, at Grist, discusses a paper on the topic called "Philanthropy in a Time of Polarization" (subscription only).
[P]olarization in America is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future. Lots of people seem stuck in the denial or bargaining stages of grief, but at some point, we have to face reality and get on with things....
[L]et’s zoom in a little and take a look at a particular sector, one that is arguably at the center of the climate change struggle (and many other progressive struggles) because, well, it’s where all the money is: institutional philanthropy. Just about anyone working in analysis, advocacy, or activism depends on the flow of dollars coming from foundations.... How the philanthropic sector chooses to adapt to polarization in the U.S. is thus of great interest to a great many people.
From the 1960s through the 1990s it was possible for different legislative coalitions to form around different issues, and no one coalition controlled the agenda.
Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle would often rely on common sources of data and analysis, funded by widely respected foundations; that common base of information provided the basis for negotiation.
Leaders in philanthropy have pursued a vision of social change that rests on a set of long-held assumptions: that strong ideas and persuasive research, coupled with broad public support and validation by elites, will motivate elected officials; that policy proposals designed to reflect the ideological preferences of both major parties, or the poll-tested preferences of centrist voters, can provide a basis for insider bargaining; and that policy entrepreneurs who operate both inside and outside legislative bodies can act as advocates, sources of ideas and information, and mediators.
...This self-conception — rigorous, expert, above politics — became extremely important to foundations and shaped the think tanks and advocacy organizations they funded, many of which, especially on the center-left (and in the environmental world), cling to that self-conception to this day.
No longer.
Not unrelatedly, the authority of “scientific, journalistic, and other establishment institutions” has been declining for decades.
The country lost the mediating power that these institutions had over public discourse, and in particular their ability to certify basic claims of fact. In their place came media outlets that reinforce polarization in order to profit from it. The center of gravity in the think-tank world shifted from the Brookings Institution—which prided itself on being a “university without students,” with deep roots in academia and with friends in Congress from both parties—to the Heritage Foundation, which was most closely affiliated with conservative social movements and the House Republican caucus. Liberals responded by building more assertively partisan organizations of their own, such as the Center for American Progress. These changes, combined with a broader segmentation of the American media landscape, have resulted in the creation of largely separate, partisan worlds of information.
Neither side now shares the same world of information. Neither side trusts the other's information or analysis. Traditionally non-partisan, non-controversial issues have become utterly polarized.
So what to do about it? The authors of the paper suggest three possible paths to take.
1. Keep slogging along with the status quo and hope to create "change through the application of strong research and support from elite cross-partisan validators.” Good luck with that.
2. Try to de-polarize through technocratic reforms like “open primaries, nonpartisan redistricting, changes to Senate filibuster rules, campaign finance reform” etc. (Like Lawrence Lessig's project to get money out of politics.) This can appear to help, but determined partisans will always find ways to get around the new rules.
3. Or just go ahead and "accept the realities of partisanship and...adopt models of policy change that work within the political system as it is.”
Well, duh!
That third option has two different possible faces: building cross-party coalitions around certain issues or going all out to put their resources toward one particular ideological pole.
You can see their struggle to face this idea of having to actually take sides on an issue. It's so painful for them, poor things.
To safeguard their investments in advocacy, foundations should almost always be prepared to work primarily with allies on one side of the political divide. Pundits who say that “nothing can get done without bipartisan support” no longer have the evidence on their side....
Donors who focus on issues such as health care should also recognize that investments in building a broad partisan and ideological infrastructure may be as important to their success as issue-specific campaigns.... In the current polarized political environment, few issues are subject to a stable consensus, and therefore opportunities for change may appear suddenly and unexpectedly. So will formidable threats to roll back progress. Adaptive think tanks, multi-issue advocacy organizations, and grassroots organizing groups are vital institutions that can respond to opportunities and challenges, build long and powerful relationships with political and media leaders, and help shape the overall climate of opinion.
This is something that the conservatives figured out long ago. For decades they've been funding think tanks, advocacy groups, student organizations, and media outlets and coordinating the message and the plan of attack on issue after issue.
On the left, especially on the center-left (and the “center,” which is what people on the center-left who don’t like using the word “left” call the center-left), foundations still cling to the old model, the old self-conception.
Mainstream foundations, especially those that pursue liberal-identified policy goals from an avowedly nonpartisan perspective, have tended to view such investments [in long-term ideological infrastructure] as inappropriate. …
Taking such steps will not be easy for a sector that prides itself on maintaining a distance from partisan politics.... Being on the “right” side of an issue and collecting elite endorsements are no longer enough. … Partisan conflict is not an external factor that advocates can work around. It is the defining axis of American politics today, and funders must be unafraid to reckon with it.
Will the funders of liberal issues take the message to heart? I hope so. It's long, long, long overdue.
Go and read the article at Grist - it's long, but worth the read, as I've summarized a lot of the points he makes with examples that make it all even more obvious.