Our Common Bonds Using What Americans Share to Help Bridge the Partisan Divide
by Matthew Levendusky
University of Chicago Press, 2023
Cloth: 978-0-226-82468-0 | Paper: 978-0-226-82470-3 | Electronic: 978-0-226-82469-7
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226824697.001.0001
ABOUT THIS BOOKAUTHOR BIOGRAPHYREVIEWSTABLE OF CONTENTS

ABOUT THIS BOOK

A compelling exploration of concrete strategies to reduce partisan animosity by building on what Democrats and Republicans have in common.  
 
One of the defining features of twenty-first-century American politics is the rise of affective polarization: Americans increasingly not only disagree with those from the other party but distrust and dislike them as well. This has toxic downstream consequences for both politics and social relationships. Is there any solution?  
 
Our Common Bonds
shows that—although there is no silver bullet that will eradicate partisan animosity—there are concrete interventions that can reduce it. Matthew Levendusky argues that partisan animosity stems in part from partisans’ misperceptions of one another. Democrats and Republicans think they have nothing in common, but this is not true. Drawing on survey and experimental evidence, the book shows that it is possible to help partisans reframe the lens through which they evaluate the out-party by priming commonalities—specifically, shared identities outside of politics, cross-party friendships, and common issue positions and values identified through civil cross-party dialogue.  Doing so lessons partisan animosity, and it can even reduce ideological polarization. The book discusses what these findings mean for real-world efforts to bridge the partisan divide.   

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Matthew Levendusky is professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, where he also holds the Stephen and Mary Baran Chair in the Institutions of Democracy at the Annenberg Public Policy Center. His books include The Partisan Sort and How Partisan Media Polarize America. He is also the coauthor of We Need to Talk and Democracy Amid Crises. 

REVIEWS

"This book will stimulate great classroom discussions. Highly recommended."
— Choice

"Levendusky focuses on partisan divisions, but his methods and data are different from those of [other] authors. Rather than focusing on ideology or issue attitudes, his concern is affective polarization, or the growing hostility and mistrust Americans feel for the other party and its supporters—a trend that he, like many observers, sees as corrosive of democratic norms...Levendusky’s methodological approach is that taken by leading studies on the field, but the book is still written in an accessible manner so that concerned citizens outside academia may find it informative."
— Perspectives on Politics

“Twenty-first-century American politics has been defined by polarization. In two prior seminal books, Levendusky offered crucial insights into how ideological sorting and partisan media have shaped the ways in which citizens have polarized. This book is yet another foundational contribution, revealing what strategies can counteract dangerously high levels of affective polarization. The book greatly advances what we know about citizen reasoning, partisanship, and identity more generally. It is required reading for all who want to understand and improve American democracy. In short, Levendusky has yet again provided an agenda-setting book.”
— James N. Druckman, Northwestern University

TABLE OF CONTENTS

- Matthew Levendusky
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226824697.003.0001
[Joe Biden;unity;partisan animosity;affective polarization]
This chapter sets the stage for what is to come: it puts into context the problem of affective polarization, and discusses some of the reasons why we should be so concerned about it. (pages 1 - 27)
This chapter is available at:
    https://academic.oup.com/chica...

- Matthew Levendusky
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226824697.003.0002
[social identity theory;partisan animosity;misperceptions;in-group identity;deliberation;cross-cutting categorization;motivated reasoning;ideological polarization]
This chapter discusses the underlying political and psychological rationales behind partisan animosity, in particular why it has increased so much in recent years. It then lays out the theoretical logic driving each of the proposed interventions discussed and tested in the book. (pages 28 - 49)
This chapter is available at:
    https://academic.oup.com/chica...

- Matthew Levendusky, Matthew Levendusky
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226824697.003.0003
[in-group identity;superordinate identity;American identity;Olympics;Fourth of July;cross-cutting categorization;partisan divide]
This chapter tests the idea that common identities shared by Democrats and Republicans can help to bridge the partisan divide. The chapter first explores this through an investigation of American national identity, using both original experimental data as well as the natural experiments of the July 4thholiday and the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics. The data show that American identity can bridge the partisan divide, but its ability to do so varies over time given the political context. The chapter then shows that other identities—such as sports fandom—can also help to bridge political divisions. (pages 50 - 78)
This chapter is available at:
    https://academic.oup.com/chica...

- Matthew Levendusky, Matthew Levendusky
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226824697.003.0004
[inter-group friendship;cross-party friendship;social networks;partisan divide;animosity]
This chapter explores where cross-party friendships can help to bridge the partisan divide. Using both observational and experimental data, it shows that most Americans—more than 8 in 10—do have friendships that cross the partisan divide. Further, these friendships do work to reduce partisan animosity, by changing the mental picture individuals hold of the other party: it is not simply disliked political opponents, but it instead contains their friends and family members as well. (pages 79 - 103)
This chapter is available at:
    https://academic.oup.com/chica...

- Matthew Levendusky
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226824697.003.0005
[deliberation;civility;dialogue;Philadelphia;partisan]
This chapter asks whether civil, cross-party dialogue provides a mechanism to reduce the partisan divide. Civil dialogue with those from the other political party allows individuals to discover both what they (unexpectedly) share in common with those from the other political party, and to see that their perceptions of the other party were incorrect—they were more reasonable than they had expected. Together, both of these mechanisms should reduce partisan animus. Using evidence from a lab-in-the-field study of political discussion conducted in the metropolitan Philadelphia area, I show strong support for these hypotheses. I also show that the effects of deliberation endure for at least one week post-discussion. (pages 104 - 121)
This chapter is available at:
    https://academic.oup.com/chica...

- Matthew Levendusky, Matthew Levendusky
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226824697.003.0006
[perceived polarization;ideological polarization;partisan cue-taking;motivated reasoning;partisan ambivalence]
The previous chapters show that these mechanisms reduce partisan animosity, but the same theoretical logic from Chapter 2 suggests that there should be two additional, downstream consequences to these arguments: perceived polarization should decrease, and ideological polarization should also lessen (via a reduction in partisan cue-taking). Using the earlier experimental studies, I show strong support for these argumentsand discuss the limitations of these downstream effects. (pages 122 - 134)
This chapter is available at:
    https://academic.oup.com/chica...

- Matthew Levendusky
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226824697.003.0007
[bridging organizations;identity complexity;social media;listening;civics education;citizenship]
This chapter pulls back to consider what these findings mean in a broader context. The chapter first tackles this from the perspective of political science theories, and then considers the broader implications for efforts to reduce partisan animosity in the real world outside of an experimental context. (pages 135 - 162)
This chapter is available at:
    https://academic.oup.com/chica...