Yes.
like that's a bad thing
No. It did not say this.
distrusting people because of their beliefs instead of their race seems an improvement to me
Equating political party = belief is a big problem. It's basically the definition of tribalism.
You're forced to pick a side.
For example, knowing that someone is a self-described "American republican" in 2016 doesn't let me know if they are a good person or a bad person, but it does let me know that abortion rights for women isn't one of their main priorities.
The goal is not to do away with categorization/heuristics entirely. It's to continually revise and improve them. Political party affiliation is on a whole different ballpark than race.
On the spectrum from hardcore libertarianism to hardcore conservatism, the two political parties are huddled closely together in the middle of it.
You don't get a choice. But you get to be branded for the rest of your life as one of those two groups.
It's a game I refuse to play.
Exactly what better criteria would you use to judge people if not their choices and actions?
Only then should you hate them, if you really choose to. Not before.
Why? I agree that it's wrong to assume that because person A supports party B, they agree with the party's position on Issue C. However, Surely the party you support is the one that best reflects your beliefs. If it isn't, then why are you supporting that party?
> You're forced to pick a side.
You're forced to pick a side, secretly, in a booth once every n years, for whatever reason you want (beliefs, best looking candidate, best sandwich eating technique, fair roll of die), for a few seconds (though you may live with the consequence of that choice for longer). Even then, only if you live in a jurisdiction with compulsory voting, and even then, only if ballot spoiling is illegal.
You are not forced to pick a side and wear badges and proclaim it in public between elections and campaign in favour of it or against another side and tell everyone that their candidate is the bees knees etc.
1. We can only think of two viewpoints
2. We unintentionally assume viewpoints at a level of less granularity;
In explanation of (2), consider that the Iyengar's study finds implicit bias not against "People who Disagree with you on Issue C" but "The Word Republican/Democrat" and that this bias was also exhibited by Independents and Leaners.
To your second point, that the side-picking is mostly separate from everyday life, consider the last section of the Iyengar study, which finds that even in non-political contexts, like awarding scholarships, a signal on a resume indicating ties to a Party exerts a very strong impact on which candidate is selected.
The obvious answer is to say, "Don't associate yourself with the D/R Party unless you agree with all of their viewpoints," but I believe we can end up with an even better answer that allows people to get organized even when they don't completely agree on every single thing, and for us to perhaps make fewer incorrect judgements based on this organization.
Well yeah. The point of a party is to obliterate the minor differences and bull forward efficiently. You're supporting all their platforms even if you only like a few.
> I believe we can end up with an even better answer that allows people to get organized
But can you think of one that doesn't involve signing up for someone else to represent you, lock-stock-and-barrel?
I think so, but I think we need to look beyond parties.
So it seems to me that not equating political party with belief would be a very strange thing - why do you think people are in political parties?
"[...]Americans today are less friendly to people in the other political party than we are to people of a different race. The researchers conclude that 'Americans increasingly dislike people and groups on the other side of the political divide and face no social repercussions for the open expression of these attitudes.' As a result, today 'the level of partisan animus in the American public exceeds racial animus.' That’s saying something!"
Is this a bit of light humor about how virulently racist the US is, or is it a call for racial unity beyond politics? I have no idea.
It's still tribalism. To answer your second question, yeah as a knee jerk reaction. I suspect republicans regardless of skin color distrust democrats regardless of skin color. Look how Ben Carson treated by Democratic voters.