Managing and Reducing Toxic Partisanship

Introduction

We are fortunate in rural and regional South Australia in that the great controversies and partisanship that are sweeping the USA and Europe do not yet seem to have taken hold here. It would be great to keep things that way. As a way of countering partisan headwinds I suggest we think about an informal code of conduct or common approach to managing partisanship by means of a practical framework of shared value. I believe this would help to manage and reduce partisanship by rebuilding trust, cooperation, and shared purpose across our communities and with associated networks and regional bodies.

1. Rationale - A house divided cannot stand.

Political and cultural polarisation is becoming a national issue as well as a global risk. It undermines governance, weakens institutions, and erodes the social fabric required for collective problem‑solving. The moral foundations of group identity, and conversely, social fragmentation offer a powerful lever for designing approaches that actually work with our psychology rather than against it. My proposal is to build a scalable, nonpartisan strategy for reconnecting our local communities, institutions, and businesses.

2. Some Core Principles (After Haidt)

Principle	Application
People prioritise different moral values (care for others, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity and liberty)	Build messaging and policy that speaks to all shared moral values, not just those emphasised at any time by one side or the other
People form beliefs intuitively, then justify them rationally	Focus on relationships and trust before facts or persuasion
Humans are ‘groupish’, or tribal, identity drives behaviour	Create shared identities that transcend political tribes
Embracing moral humility and recognising our own biases reduces conflict	Embed reflective practices into our institutions and public discourse

3. Proposal: A framework for mutual understanding, not necessarily consensus

Reduce partisanship by strengthening cross‑group understanding, shared identity, and moral humility. The intent is not to try to eliminate differences, but to build structures that make differences non‑threatening. Research shows that people don’t need to agree to cooperate; they need to feel understood, respected, and part of a shared moral community.

4. Finding and acknowledging our shared values

Facilitated conversations that bring together people with different political identities to explore how they prioritise/rank their moral foundations, such as care for others, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity and liberty.

·       What moral foundations matter most to them

·       How prioritising those foundations shapes their views

·       Surfacing where shared values exist

This approach works because it bypasses debate and instead builds empathy through shared values and storytelling, which is one of our most effective tools.

5. Focus on common projects

Leverage micro‑grants for projects requiring cross‑group community collaboration.

·       Local arts initiatives

·       Environmental clean‑ups

·       Youth mentoring

·       Cultural festivals

Shared tasks create shared identity. Cooperation precedes agreement.

Institutional-Level Interventions

1. Understanding our shared moral foundations

Clarify our approach when working with:

• Councils

• Boards

• Non-Profits

• NGOs

• Business associations

Topics include:

• Understanding our moral diversity

• Reducing aggressively moralised language and focusing on outcomes

• Designing policies that appeal across our various different and shared foundations

Outcome: More inclusive discourse, governance and less polarised and polarising decision‑making.

2. Bipartisan Descriptive Frameworks

Institutions adopt communication guidelines that:

• Frame issues using multiple moral foundations at the same time, e.g. care for others, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity, liberty etc.

• Avoid “us vs them” language

• Highlight shared goals and interdependence

Example: “The Department of the Environment identifies that land management is an issue in the Barossa and Eden Valleys which face critical climate change driven challenges, including water scarcity, soil degradation (erosion, salinity), and the need for sustainable agricultural practices. Key concerns involve balancing intensive viticulture/tourism growth with biodiversity, managing pesticide drift, and securing water supplies.”

Potentially contentious discussions such as ‘climate action’ can be framed in terms of our core shared values such as care for others, and fairness and loyalty (protecting our homeland), authority (respecting institutions), and sanctity (conserving and preserving natural and cultural heritage). For example:

“The Barossa and Eden Valleys sustain longstanding and close-knit communities sharing a history of mutual support and social cohesion. Caring for each other and our exquisite environment is a commonsense extension of our strongly cohesive community feeling. As a community, we value basic fairness, to each other, to our children and to the broader South Australian community. We are a loyal community; loyal to each other, loyal to our history and shared values, and loyal to our country. Whilst we are a strongly resilient and self-sufficient farming community, we accept and value the level playing field provided under the authority of federal, state and local government. And when it comes down to it, there are some things that are essentially sacred to us. Mutual respect, our respect for law and an ordered society, a belief in something greater and more important than ourselves. We share a single Earth, and as a community, we depend absolutely upon conserving its fertility and the turning of the seasons.  Finally, we are our own people. We value independence and self-sufficiency; we are our own first responders. We value the freedom and liberty that Australia provides for us and if necessary, we will fight to defend it.”

3. Potential Interventions

1. Sign and adopt a statement of our determination to avoid toxic partisanship

A voluntary agreement between SA State and Local government, Non-Profits, Businesses and Business Organisations, and cultural institutions to:

• Promote shared moral consensus and humility

• Reduce demonisation in public discourse

• Encourage cross‑foundation framing in policy communication

  
  

2. Social Media Culture Reform

Work with local organisations and individuals to:

• Reduce outrage incentives in Social Media posts

• Promote cross‑cutting content and reasoned argument

• Elevate bridge‑builders over conflict entrepreneurs

This aligns with and responds to the idea that social media is a “moral amplifier” that rewards tribalism.

4. Expected Outcomes

Short-Term

• Reduced hostility in local discourse

• Increased cross‑group contact

• More inclusive policy framing

Medium-Term

• Stronger institutional trust

• Decline in polarising rhetoric

• More collaborative governance

Long-Term

• A cultural shift toward moral humility and simple politeness

• Resilient communities capable of navigating disagreement

• Reduced partisanship and increased social cohesion

5. Why This Works

Because we are not trying to eliminate differences, the approach builds structures that make differences non‑threatening. Rather than simply calling on others to agree with us, we need to take the lead in how we conduct ourselves. Research evidence shows that people don’t need to agree to cooperate; they need to feel understood, respected, and part of a shared moral community.

This proposal creates exactly that.