Modern Doublethink: The Rise of Negative Partisanship by Sullivan Pearson

In the modern world, division is everywhere. It’s in the rivalries between favorite sports teams, the debates over whether pineapple truly belongs on pizza, and even the heated discussions one can have regarding whether cats or dogs make the better pet. However, amidst these lighthearted disagreements lies the

increasing level of division that exists between political parties and their respective ideologies within contemporary Western society.

Negative partisanship is the phenomenon that causes voters to support one party because they strongly dislike another (Caruana et al., 2015) and can be summarized in the age-old adage “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. It has the ability to change voters’ opinions on pressing issues depending on the way it affects the party or candidate they support, like regular partisanship does, but it also factors in how these issues would impact the party or candidate that the voter strongly dislikes. It is a social tendency that is eerily reminiscent of Orwellian concepts. This is because negative partisanship enables a state of mind where someone’s values can easily be shifted in order to disadvantage an opposing party or ideology viewed as an enemy. Examples include changing beliefs regarding the fundamental principles of democracy, such as the electoral system used to elect new governments: who is able to vote in an election, what is required to cast your ballot, and how electoral ridings are drawn up in the first place. An example in Canadian politics would be voting for Justin Trudeau in the 2015 federal election, not because you support his policies but due to a strong dislike you feel for incumbent Prime Minister Stephen Harper. However, no example is as glaring or as recent as the argument surrounding states’ rights in the United States of America, especially in the context of several states’ decisions to bar Donald Trump from the 2024 Republican primary ballot.

Since 2023, a number of cases concerning Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on ballots for state primaries and caucuses have been brought to courts all around the United States (Lawfare Media, 2024). These cases are a result of the events on January 6, 2021, when American protestors broke through Capitol Police security lines and breached the Capitol Building, called to action by Trump through his Twitter account on social media.

Under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the United States, no person can hold any public or military office after engaging in insurrection or rebellion or having given aid or comfort to people engaging in such acts. At the time of writing, officials in the states of Maine and Colorado have found Trump to be ineligible for primary elections within their jurisdictions thanks to this section of the 14th Amendment (Lawfare Media, 2024), and these rulings have sent shockwaves throughout the American public and the world.

However, examining this issue in regards to the troubling rise of negative partisanship in both America and the Western world illustrates another glaring disconnect amongst voters. While the idea that individual states are able to strike specific candidates from ballots pertaining to national elections is fervently denounced by supporters of former President Trump, the same people eagerly clamor for individual states and their respective courts to make impactful decisions regarding other important issues, such as gun control, healthcare, and immigration.

Herein lies the demon that is negative partisanship: it’s possible to hold two different opinions on the same general issue, simply because one benefits you politically by advancing your ideological interests while quashing your opponents’, while the other does the opposite. This ability to believe in two opposing positions regarding these similar court cases is tantamount to doublethink, described in the Oxford Dictionary as ‘the acceptance of or mental capacity to accept contrary opinions or beliefs at the same time, especially as a result of political indoctrination’. While this disconnect is growing more and more evident among political groups in the United States and Canada, little is being done to address the specter of negative partisanship, which is the root cause of much of Western society’s political dissonance.

The idea that someone can look at two legal rulings concerning a similar issue—states’ rights and sovereignty—and arrive at completely different conclusions solely due to the way they affect a political party, candidate, or ideology is especially frightening to think about. It has immense implications for all aspects of society, but especially in regards to the legal system and our courts. Although the courts of Canada are very well insulated from external politics and remain almost exclusively apolitical, those in the United States vary from apolitical to openly associating with political parties. This fraternization with politics amongst justices allows even the possibility of negative partisanship to bias a ruling to one side or another. It is therefore easy to see how large of an effect negative partisanship can have upon the law and our society in general if left unchecked.

In summary, the rise of negative partisanship has led to a worrying legal and political environment where it is possible for voters to change their opinions and turn a blind eye to a breach of their principles if it disadvantages another group or a candidate that they deem a threat. This can be seen most clearly in the legal battles the Trump campaign is currently embroiled in, as the supporters of the former president ardently argue against the power of individual states to decide who is on party primary ballots within their jurisdiction—after arguing the exact opposite for issues ranging from healthcare to gun control and immigration. This epidemic of negative partisanship, reminiscent of George Orwell’s ‘doublethink,’ is an issue that must be addressed sooner rather than later, lest it ruin the credibility of our society’s most prestigious institutions and courts.

Works cited

Caruana, Nicholas J., et al. “The Power of the Dark Side: Negative Partisanship and Political Behaviour in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue Canadienne de Science Politique, vol. 48, no. 4, 2015, pp. 771–89. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24810961. Accessed February 7, 2024.

Lawfare Media “Trump Disqualification Tracker.” Lawfare Media, Feb 5 2024. www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker. Accessed February 7, 2024.