Americans are actually less divided than they think

Contrary to popular belief, Americans are not as divided or as entrenched in their opinions as they might think.

That’s one of the many provocative points made by Diana McLain Smith in “Remaking the Space Between Us: How Citizens Can Work Together To Build a Better Future for All.” Smith has years of experience working to resolve intergroup conflicts within businesses and organizations. With deep research and informative statistics, her book analyzes how Americans got here and offers viable, if demanding, steps to remedy the problem.

“These essays are for people who long for a better future,” she writes, “but cannot see their way through the obstacle course our democracy has become.”

The first ray of hope Smith cites is a 2018 project by More in Common, a nonprofit, that determined only 13% of people hold views at the extreme ends of the political spectrum. Thus, the large majority – a hefty 87% – holds views that are less radical and more practical.

She also cites experiments in 2019 and 2021 conducted by researchers from Stanford University that revealed that Americans are not as entrenched in their opinions as people are led to believe, but are open to learning and even changing their views. Also that most party adherents overestimated the degree of extremism within the other party. 

Smith puts some of the blame for the current state on the media, including social media, which focuses relentlessly on the speech and actions of the 13%.

But mostly, Smith says, “we the people” are the problem. Americans have become increasingly insular, siloed, and isolated in groups that consume the same media and remain largely out of touch with those who think differently. While many rightly expect the government to solve common problems, Smith says, people wrongly expect very little of themselves.

“Our most formidable enemy lies inside of us,” she writes. “It is that part in us that looks everywhere but inside and at everyone but ourselves for creating a national reality we do not like.”

Smith urges Americans to take moral responsibility for their nation’s future, for the benefit of themselves and all groups that make up their democracy. She cites many individuals and groups across the country that are taking different approaches to doing just that, and with impressive success. 

One example occurred around the turn of the millennium in economically struggling Lewiston, the second largest city in Maine, the state with the oldest and whitest population in the country. Desperate to reverse its declining population, Lewiston attracted, over a period of time, 1,000 Somali refugees who had fled their famine-stricken homeland. They had heard of the city’s low crime, good schools, and cheap housing. Their arrival was a huge economic boom for the city, whose longtime residents opted not to feel threatened by their new neighbors. While in later years politicians attempted to divide the community, playing up anti-immigrant fears, those efforts eventually backfired, as old and new Mainers built cross-group alliances and friendships, initiated a successful ballot initiative, and forced the divisive politicians out of office.

Smith also recounts the work of a bipartisan committee charged with modernizing Congress. She devotes a lengthy section to the press, to how the news business – “the classic siloed system” – has contributed to the problem and the growing national movement to create a new kind of journalism. 

To be sure, she does not gloss over the enormous work required to create a new national reality. But “Remaking the Space Between Us” counters the inclination to feel overwhelmed, angry, or helpless.

These essays, she writes, "show us why we need not – and why we must not – give up on each other or give in to forces so overwhelming they make us feel powerless. We are not powerless.”