The Impact Of Polarization On Messaging

How group identity and 'social sorting' affect voting

Few will argue that America is about as politically polarized as it ever was. Voters on both ends of the political spectrum tend to pick up subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) cues as to how they should cast their ballots. Increasingly, these cues come from non-traditional sources—like political commentators, social media, and even word-of-mouth. This ‘virtual signaling’ may be diluting the effectiveness of traditional campaign messaging—which tries to convince voters about actual policy options.

G. Elliot Morris has a fascinating piece on this phenomenon that details how increasing polarization, group identity and ‘social sorting’ may necessitate new campaign strategies to deal with this new reality. This is particularly critical for Democrats, who face dwindling support among key voter groups (like non-college-educated whites)—who are disproportionately reliant on group identity.

There is currently a debate within the leadership of the Democratic Party as to whether candidates should only talk about popular “consensus” policies (like drug price negotiation on Medicare) and avoid more controversial topics like de-funding the police. As Morris points out, however, it may not matter what messaging is employed if group identity is the key decider of voting.

Importantly, the use (or misuse) of ‘virtual signaling’ is not the sole province of one ideology. Both the left and right seem to be relying more and more on almost tribal belief systems—impervious to rational discourse or messaging. In the short term, it seems that Democrats have the most to lose. But in the long run, it’s our democracy—and the concept of shared values—that will suffer.