The ‘words hurt’ model of polarization

The ‘words hurt’ model of polarization

They argue that simply identifying with a political party, as most Americans do, is enough to generate unfavorable attitudes toward the other side, or the “out-party.” (This idea should feel pretty familiar to Red Sox and Yankees fans.) And a variety of survey evidence shows that in recent decades Democratic identifiers have come to view Republicans increasingly negatively, and vice versa.

As GB resources become more scarce they become more like predator and prey, one gets resources only at the expense of another in a negative sum game. 

  To be sure, some of this “affective” polarization stems from the growing ideological differences between the parties. In particular, the authors found that policy preferences on social welfare issues were significantly correlated with how favorably Americans’ rated the out-party in comparison to their own party. This is consistent with Pew Research Centerdata showing that the largest “values” gap between Republicans and Democrats emerges on issues related to the social safety net.

In a Biv society the debate is moderate Iv individualism against the Bi safety net, if the country becomes poorer it is more like Oy thieves or predatos like hyenas against the Ro gang acting like socialists with public G property or Ro herd animals.