States are Not Battlegrounds...Yet.

It has become increasingly difficult to consume any form of media this election season without being bombarded by a barrage of combative language which feel aimed more at rallying the troops than reporting the news. We are reminded that both campaigns have amassed war chests for collecting ammunition on their enemies and targeting voters in hard-fought, battleground states. While the use of militaristic language is not new in politics, the sharp uptick in violent rhetoric is in itself a cause for concern and not without cause or consequence. Regardless of reality, the United States of America is feeling more divided than ever, and that perception affects how we speak, process information, and behave.

While it’s easy to become desensitized to the increasingly provocative rhetoric of the media multiverse vying for your attention, there are steps we can take to become more responsible consumers and sharers of information. The U.S. is at a crucial inflection point. International experts warn of a high potential for violent conflict, regardless of who is elected, unless steps are taken to address the roots of division and begin the process of building social cohesion.?

Violence is predictable. Civil unrest is predictable. Civil war is also predictable. Thankfully, all three of these, with the right level of awareness and skillful engagement, are preventable. In this article, we will explore the power of language, the neurobiology of conflict, and highlight the efforts of those in the middle who are working hard to avert violent conflict and begin healing the divide.?

Sticks and Stones?

Wartime references and violent rhetoric have more than just an anecdotal impact. Research has shown at least three significant psychological and physiological effects. The first is our tendency, as a species, to fall in line and coalesce alongside those who look and believe the way we do when confronted with the threat of an outside enemy. This “us versus them”, zero-sum thinking creates a delineation between groups who become entrenched, making common ground psychologically harder to find. In pragmatic, political terms, the US constitution provides for additional wartime powers to a sitting president in cases of emergency. This power is both broad and largely unchecked by the other branches of government. When combined with a reluctance by the electorate to change presidents in times of war (Slovic et al., 2002), we see additional reason to be mindful of language and the importance of defining actual versus manufactured emergencies.?

Secondly, language also has a direct impact on behavior. Coined affect heuristics by psychologist Daniel Kahneman whose research showed that emotionally charged words led to instinctual, polarized reactions without engaging the cognitive parts of our brain (Kahneman, 2011). Adding a political lens, a study conducted at Michigan University (Wadley, 2011), demonstrated that exposure to violent and demeaning language led to violent political ideation regardless of party affiliation. Real-life impacts are included in an article titled “From Hashtag to Hate Crime,” which found that periods of increased xenophobic posts in social media lead to a 32% increase in targeted hate crimes (Muller & Swartz, 2020).?

Finally, violent language and perceived threat affect our brain’s ability to process and retain information. Under threat, our limbic system hijacks the prefrontal cortex, limiting our ability to compute complex, nuanced concepts, instead resorting to binary thinking. This exacerbates our brain’s pre-existing negativity bias, which leads us to register and remember threats in our environment, but limits our ability to remember positive stories- especially about our perceived adversaries. For proof of this condition, consider the reputation of a politician who has been in public service for over 30 years, which is honorable; yet if they happen to be of different political persuasion than us, then it becomes difficult to name even one positive accomplishment. By ratcheting up the rhetoric, politicians can motivate the masses and keep us stuck in binary thinking.?

States are not Red OR Blue.?

Looking at the color-coded electoral maps showcased on every media outlet, you could be led to believe that we are a country divided between two primary colors: blue for Democrats and red for Republicans.

The richer the color, the greater the division. These maps, in addition to the language we use, also colors our thinking. Research shows this two-toned dichotomy impacts voters' views, reinforcing the adversarial narrative (Rutchick, 2009). When coupled with aforementioned effects of violent language it’s no wonder we feel stuck in a divided, dichromatic world.?

As illustrated in the maps below featured on The Purple States of America, a more nuanced reality emerges. Think of each state as a shade of purple- a blend of political perspectives, experiences, and literal values. In truth, all counties and all states contain a mixture of both Democrats and Republicans.

Left suspiciously off the color wheel altogether is the nearly thirty percent of Americans registered as Independents. The first image shows the electoral map based on electoral predictions by states and the next map shows colors by population, and when you look at this map, you'll see that we are far less divided along state lines than we’ve been led to believe.

States are NOT Battlegrounds.

The Electoral College process, used to determine the President of the United States, has ensured that the election will come down to a handful of voters in a handful of states. The geographic domains of these democratic, destiny deciders were predominantly called Swing States until the late 1980’s when news outlets started using the term Battleground States interchangeably. This trend spiked in the early 2000’s, when the pendulum swung toward the use of “battleground” over its more neutral-sounding contemporary.

This is not this term's first foray in the American lexicon and while not surprising, it should be concerning that the earliest references to “battleground states” were in the lead-up to the Civil War- the deadliest war in American history, resulting in a loss of 2% of the population and as much as 10% of all adult males.?

The comparison is far more troubling than semantic similarities. Barbara F. Walter, former member of the US government's Political Instability Task Force (PTIF) whose job it was to determine the early warning signs for civil unrest in other countries, outlines why their findings are concerning for the U.S. domestically. The task force found two primary predictors for violent conflict: countries classified as “anocracies” (between democracy and autocracy) and the prevalence of ethnic factionalization (a shift from ideologically based politics to identity-based politics).

While healthy democracies and autocracies manage to weather conflagration, apparently, it is the ‘squishy middle’ which results in the most violence. The Center for Systemic Peace’s 2020-2021 report downgraded the world’s oldest democracy to an anocracy for the first time since 1800. Identity politics continue to play an increasing role in the US political arena with the two major parties split heavily along a racial and religious divide. The Republican Party is now composed of over 80% White supporters, and garners the overwhelming support of Christian Evangelicals, while the Democratic Party tends to attract a majority of minority voters, further supporting the drift towards identity over ideology. Walter goes on to point out that while global homicide rates have decreased significantly over the past several decades, the number of intra-country deaths over political differences has continued to rise (Walter, 2022).

Global institutions have also taken notice. The Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), a global think tank which measures global levels of peace and ranks countries based on their peacefulness, has significantly downgraded the United States in the past decade from 101st in 2014 down to 132nd out of 163 countries in 2024. This ranking puts the US between the two turbulent nations of Brazil and Iran (2024).

Mediators Beyond Borders International (MBBI), an organization focused on supporting communities around the globe, also began noticing an alarming trend when comparing indicators used to anticipate election violence in Kenya where in 2007 political unrest resulted in the deaths of 1300 Kenyans and displaced over a half million others (Amnesty, 2014). It should be noted that inflammatory rhetoric by Kenya’s media has also been cited as playing a particularly unhelpful role in the violent tension.

The Role of Media?

Technology has enabled every human with a hand-held computer to become a journalist who can reach an audience of millions with a touch of a button. The competition for attention in this crowded arena has raised the reward for bombastic voices and drowned out the moderate ones. Media, in all its forms, has a huge influence on how we see ourselves and each other and has the power to unite us or divide us.?

Jonathan Haidt’s research furthers this point, describing social media as a modern “Tower of Babel.” He explains how social media platforms drive engagement by amplifying divisiveness and promoting emotional and polarizing content, which while great for selling ads, fractures our shared reality. This environment, Haidt argues, pushes people into ideological tribes, where they’re more likely to view others as morally inferior, reducing the chance for meaningful dialogue (Haidt, 2022).

In 1987, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) dissolved the “Fairness Doctrine” which required broadcasters to present balanced coverage on controversial issues of public importance, arguing that the myriad of news options made the rule infringing on free speech irrelevant (Stefan, 2024). The vacuum, however, allowed for-profit networks and newly minted cellphone journalists to exclusively promote an ideology in alignment with either their ownership, viewership or sponsorship. “Free speech” could therefore be purchased and regardless of the societal impact, were incentivized to sensationalize and foster polarization. Their free speech is often offered free of service, but as Yuval Harari reminds us, if you are not paying for a service, it's likely you are the product (Harari, 2018)

This doesn’t mean we’re doomed. It means we need to work harder as consumers of information. There are outlets such as All Sides which offer articles from all perspectives on any given topic. The opposite of polarization is the ability to hold multiple truths. Kenneth Cloke, in Mediation in a Time of Crisis, emphasizes that by accepting the coexistence of different truths, we foster empathy, allowing opposing perspectives to complement rather than contradict each other (Cloke, 2021). Sri Lanka, a country which experienced one of the longest civil wars, went so far as to establish a Ministry of National Co-existence, Dialogue and Official Languages focused on fostering social cohesion by celebrating multiple narratives.?

Violence is not Inevitable.?

Organizations like MBBI and the National Association for Community Mediation (NAFCM), along with several other like-minded organizations established the TRUST Network in 2020 with a focus on building a national infrastructure for social cohesion and security. The goal was to establish a national architecture for preventing and mitigating violence by alerting local community centers trained in collaboration, de-escalation and facilitation skills to work together to channel expression towards connection rather than deepening divides and violence.?

In addition to supporting these organizations, there are steps we can all take personally. We can be mindful of our own language and hold ourselves to the same standards we expect of others. Rather than confronting, correcting or challenging a friend on social media, try asking a curious question that encourages understanding. For instance, consider asking, “What experiences led you to feel this way?” or “What does this meme mean from your personal perspective?” These responses invite conversation rather than evoke defensiveness and escalation.?

When consuming media, ask yourself if the information is humanizing or dehumanizing? Does it foster empathy or does it create an "us versus them" mentality? At the same time, look for points of commonality, even in disagreements. It could be as simple as acknowledging shared concerns or values, like wanting the best for the community. Small gestures like these can open the door to a more respectful and productive dialogue, moving us closer to understanding rather than division.

On a hopeful note, Cloke also reminds us, “Conflicts are often profound opportunities for learning, evolution, and transformation.” In that light, while the potential for violence is high, it means that the opportunity for transformation is also high. By staying aware of our roles as listeners and sharing responsibly, we can collectively determine that we are in a moment for healing and ensure that no one in the United States will live in a "battleground state."

References?

Amnesty International. (2017, August 3). Kenyan elections: Anxiety and unhealed wounds as 2007/8 victims return to the polls. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/08/kenyan-elections-anxiety-and-unhealed-wounds-as-2007-8-victims-return-to-the-polls/

Center for Systemic Peace. (2021). Polity5 annual report, 2020-2021. Retrieved from https://www.systemicpeace.org/polityproject.html

Cloke, K. (2013). The Dance of Opposites: Explorations in Mediation, Dialogue, and Conflict Resolution Systems Design. Goodmedia Press.

Cloke, K. (2022). Mediation in a Time of Crisis: Pandemic, Prejudice, Police, and Political Polarization. Jossey-Bass.

Department of Veterans Affairs. (2019). America's wars total casualties [Fact sheet]. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.va.gov

Furrer, R.A., Schloss, K., Lupyan, G., et al. (2023). Red and blue states: Dichotomized maps mislead and reduce perceived voting influence. Cognitive Research, 8, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-023-00465-2

Goddard, T. (2020). What are battleground states? Taegan Goodard’s electoral vote map. Retrieved from https://electoralvotemap.com/what-are-the-battleground-states/

Gross, O., & Aolain, F. N. (2014). The rhetoric of war: Words, conflict, and categorization post-9/11. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 24(2). Available at https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cjlpp/vol24/iss2/1

Haidt, J. (2022). Why the past 10 years of American life have been uniquely stupid. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com

Institute for Economics & Peace. (2014). Global Peace Index 2014 [PDF]. Vision of?

Humanity. Retrieved from https://www.economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/2014-Global-Peace-Index-REPORT_01.pdf

Institute for Economics & Peace. (2024). Global Peace Index 2024 [PDF]. Vision of Humanity. Retrieved from https://www.economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/GPI-2024-web.pdf

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog. (n.d.). Before there were "red" and "blue" states, there were "free" states and "slave" states. Marquette University. Retrieved from https://law.marquette.edu

Mellor, N. (2016). Language of division or unity? In The Egyptian Dream: Egyptian National Identity and Uprisings. Edinburgh Scholarship Online.

Müller, K., & Schwarz, C. (2020, July 24). From Hashtag to Hate Crime: Twitter and Anti-Minority Sentiment. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3149103 or https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3149103

Myers, R. (2019, August 6). The ‘warspeak’ permeating everyday language puts us all in the trenches. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/the-warspeak-permeating-everyday-language-puts-us-all-in-the-trenches-121356

National Park Service. (2023). The Civil War. U.S. Department of the Interior. Retrieved from https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/index.htm

Newberg, A. (2023). The neuroscience behind words. Business Relationship Management Institute. Retrieved from https://brm.institute/neuroscience-behind-words

Rutchick, A. M., Smyth, J. M., & Konrath, S. (2009). Seeing Red (and Blue): Effects of Electoral College depictions on political group perception. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 9, 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2009.01183.x

Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). The Affect Heuristic. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge University Press.

Stefon, M. (2024, September 24). fairness doctrine. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fairness-Doctrine

U.S. Census Bureau. (2020). Population estimates. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/popclock/

United Nations; World Bank. (2018). Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict. Washington, DC: World Bank. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10986/28337

Wadley, J. (2011, January 13). Violent political rhetoric fuels violent attitudes. University of Michigan. PhysOrg.com. Retrieved from https://phys.org/news/2011-01-violent-political-rhetoric-fuels-attitudes.html

Walter, B. F. (2022, February 11). We are living in the age of civil war. The New Republic. Retrieved from https://newrepublic.com/article/165959/global-age-civil-war

Walter, B. F. (2022, March). Is the US headed towards another civil war? [Video]. TED Conferences. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/barbara_f_walter_is_the_us_headed_towards_another_civil_war

Weiner, S. (2022, Nov. 12). The power of us: How fostering a shared identity can lead to unity. AAMC News. Retrieved from https://www.aamc.org