Is political polarity heading toward a 'tipping point'?

Monday's Washington Post story about destabilizing poles putting the rest of the planet in peril prompted an expert to say that "the very character of these places is changing" and that "we are seeing conditions unlike those ever seen before."

The expert was a glaciologist commenting on ominous climate-change developments. But the same phrases could reflect reading a bracing paper, "Polarization and tipping points," published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Cornell's Distinguished Professor of Sociology, Michael Macy, the lead author of study, said in an interview that the analysis is about "whether there is a critical point above which polarization becomes difficult, if not impossible, to reverse" — an eerie echo of the climate-change debate.

The study, conducted with colleagues from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, "identifies an important litmus test that we should pay careful attention to," Macy said. "And that litmus test is the way in which polarization responds to what we call in the paper an exogenous shock."

Macy mentioned examples like a financial crisis and corresponding economic collapse, an attack by a foreign adversary, a catastrophic climate event, a pandemic or other "threats to our well-being, if not our very survival, that in the past would be met by a united effort."

Present experiences, however, are "not encouraging," Macy said.

Regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election (an attack on the DNA of our democracy), Jan. 6 (an attack on our citadel of democracy) and the pandemic (an attack on our physical and political immune system), the expectation would be "a united effort in response to these events. And instead, what happened is that the polarization infected the response."

So Jan. 6 not only unleashed a MAGA mob, but a subsequent, substantial "partisan division that actually developed on whether or not the attack on Congress was serious and whether there should be an investigation and whether people should be held accountable."

That stark partisan division is on full display today at the scene of the crime, the Capitol, where hearings are met with a deaf ear from most House GOPers, as evidenced by all but two Republican representatives voting to not hold former chief of staff Mark Meadows in contempt for snubbing the institution they (and formerly, Meadows himself) are privileged to serve.

Meadows had previously agreed to testify, and his already-released documents have been damaging and damning to the reluctant witness, as well as a reluctant Fox News, whose hosts' texts to Meadows implored presidential intervention to stop the assault. However, most soon got back in line with the "Lie of the Year," as named by PolitiFact: "Lies about the Jan. 6 Capitol attack and its significance" (an assessment amplified by this week's Associated Press investigation, "Far too little vote fraud to tip election to Trump, AP finds").

Chief among those minimizing, even mocking, the significance was the former commander-in-chief himself. "There was love in the air" at the lethal Jan. 6 attack, former President Donald Trump told former Fox News Host Bill O'Reilly at a poorly attended "History Tour" event in Florida on Saturday.

And among those activating the lies that led to the attack were many members of Congress — especially the House Freedom Caucus, according to an extensive report by the New York Times on Thursday. Among its key conclusions: "Congressional Republicans have fought the Jan. 6 committee's investigation at every turn, but it is increasingly clear that Mr. Trump relied on the lawmakers to help his attempts to retain power. When Justice Department officials said they could not find widespread fraud, Mr. Trump was unconcerned: 'Just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and R Congressmen,' he said, according to [Justice Department official] Mr. Donoghue's notes of the call."

The "R Congressmen" are part of (and at times party to) accelerating legislative partisanship, said Kathryn Pearson, an associate professor of political science at the University of Minnesota. "When the two parties can't agree on issues of taxing and spending or social policy, that's one thing," Pearson said. "But when the legitimacy of elections is contested, that is deeply concerning."

The "Polarization and tipping points" study is centered on a Senate-like legislative body of 100 individuals and their response to an external threat. "It is not surprising that these events prompted a call to arms," the study stated. "What is surprising is the direction in which the arms were pointed."

Congressional polarization "is historically deep because it is not just about policy disagreements — though there are deep policy disagreements — it is about teamsmanship where the parties view themselves as opposite teams fighting for majority party control," Pearson said. It's also become "extremely personal and extremely, in some cases, hostile, where the members of the two parties and Congress not only don't work together, they actively don't like one another."

The degree that congressional polarization leads and/or reflects social polarization is a subject of much debate among political scientists, Pearson said. Polarization is "certainly evident" among elected officials and the electorate alike. But the public has more cohorts uninterested in politics, and more moderates than Congress can count on.

But the public's pulse is running hot, too. Ask any school board member, election official, or other earnest, honest citizen making our civic society function. Or the elderly Blaine couple whose Dec. 6 grocery order was allegedly run over by an Instacart driver because of a pro-police sign in their yard.

The role of the media in increasing polarization will be the subject of Macy's next study. Before the report's release, he rhetorically asked "Does the division in the media reflect polarization in the audience? Or does it increase the polarization in the audience? And is there evidence for both?"

Pearson questioned "partisan bubbles and not hearing opposing points of view and in some cases factual accounts of what's happening." Beyond that, she expressed concern "that the media isn't taking polarization seriously enough."

The public seems to sense it, according to a new Pew Research Center poll, which puts the U.S. at the top of 17 nations in the percentage of people who say that there are "very strong/strong conflicts between people who support different political parties" (90%, compared to 44% in Canada).

Our democracy faces external threats, but the internal, insidious ones are particularly pernicious. In a statement accompanying the study, Macy said of polarization: "The process resembles a meltdown in a nuclear reactor. Up to a point, technicians can bring the core temperature back down by increasing the flow of water used to cool the reactor. But if the temperature goes critical, there is a runaway reaction that cannot be stopped. Our study shows that something very similar can happen in a 'political reactor.' The voters are like nuclear technicians. It's up to us to bring the political temperature back down before it's too late."

And the political temperature needs to be brought back down before the country can cohesively act to bring the atmospheric temperature down in order to deal with the destabilizing poles and associated climate-change challenges, as well as other threats that should — indeed must — unite us instead of divide us.