What I propose is we use the findings of political psychology, not to accentuate differences between left and right, but to bridge gaps.

Columns share an author's personal perspective and are often based on facts in the newspaper's reporting.

If we can agree on anything politically, its how divided we are.

We see it on TV reporting, on social media, and in between family members. On the personal scale, its poisoning relationships, and on the national scale, it's destroying the cooperation and compromise that we need to function as a working democracy. If we cant reduce this divisiveness, we will fall. Yet the division, and the danger, is getting worse.

When a patient will not heal by themselves, the attending doctors need to diagnose and treat the patient accurately and effectively to save them. The most scientific diagnosis of our political self is through political psychology, but that itself is a divided profession.

Professor Thomas B. Edsall recently reported in the New York Times that Disputes over differences in judgement, character and moral values between liberals and conservatives are among the most fraught topics in political psychology. How can doctors save our body politic if they are arguing among themselves?

Lets begin with the findings of research programs that measured cognitive reflection and thinking habits in relation to liberal or conservative political stances. You can imagine them by considering the yes/no responses of subjects to statements like these: A person should always consider new possibilities; or One should disregard evidence that conflicts with established beliefs; or No one can talk me out of something I know is right.

When these kinds of responses are sorted by the subjects political affinities, conclusions are drawn that are very similar across many studies: the willingness to change ones mind with new evidence was robustly associated with liberalism, rejection of traditional moral values, acceptance of science, and skepticism regarding religious claims. Conversely, conservatives were averse to changing beliefs about extrasensory perception, respect for tradition, abortion, and God, even on the basis of evidence.

Some studies go further: misinformation is currently predominantly a pathology of the right and conservatives have more need for order, rigidity, and dogmatism. Statements like Liberals perform better on objective tests of cognitive ability and intelligence . . . while conservatives score higher on self-deception are more likely to further divide than to heal. And yet, many liberals (including, mea culpa, myself) take these findings as ammunition to attack conservatives.

Lets face it, insult isnt a great way to persuade opponents.

Remember Obamas charge that conservatives cling to their guns and religion or Hillary Clintons basket of deplorables? I imagine those charges work as well as when conservatives attack liberals as immoral or godless abortionists. And many of us liberals try to persuade with the use of statistics and science, which isnt very bright when you consider the findings that conservatives are likely to ignore evidence. So, how can we heal? Should we even try? After all, some liberal commentators express disgust when Joe Biden expresses his hopes for bipartisan cooperation, and his history with it. But we all have to realize how important it is, especially now.

If the probability is that liberals are more likely to adopt change, I suggest we stop what isnt working, and try to persuade conservative opponents by appealing to their strengths. The recent findings of political psychology give some hope to such methods, and more importantly, a warning of a dangerous change in political direction: the rise of authoritarianism. History suggests opponents can unite in the face of a common enemy, and authoritarians threaten the entire country, liberal and conservative alike.

Some might equate conservatives with authoritarians, but there are critical differences between the two: the first are opposed to change and novelty, while the second are averse to diversity and complexity. A number of observers are noting that what has taken place with the Trump administration and among his followers is an authoritarian revolution. The hallmarks of authoritarianism are opposition to diversity of people, beliefs, and behaviors, and the embrace of oneness and sameness; all obvious in the xenophobia of Trump followers. The actions of Trump and his enablers: state violence, demonization of protesters, voter suppression, co-option of the organs of prosecution and the courts, are all exactly that of an authoritarian coup.

What I propose is we use the findings of political psychology, not to accentuate differences between left and right, but to bridge gaps. We are seeing glimmers of understanding in, and creative messaging from, the conservatives of The Lincoln Project and Republican Voters Against Trump. Liberals can appeal to conservatives attraction to traditions of right vs. wrong, rule of law, the morality of honesty, and opposition to corruption.

The rise of authoritarianism should scare conservatives too: its certainly not a valued American tradition nor is it based on the rule of laws, not men. Radical change, from democracy to autocracy, is not a conservative goal. Together we must unite to prevent us from falling into authoritarianism.

Lee Mendenhall lives in Framngham.

Read more:

Column: Can we find common ground for conservatives and liberals? - Milford Daily News