What your lawn shows us about democracy

Nature needs diversity more than order, and that's true of politics, too

In nature no less than in politics, this does not represent a healthy ecosystem. (Photo by David Mancini on Unsplash)

---

Across the river from us, a town is taking a woman to court because she refuses to mow her yard. A local ordinance prohibits weeds over 10 inches high in “areas of a premises that are intended to be used,” which a citation claims the property violates by being “overgrown.” Overgrowth is apparently a big deal in that community: it’s punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 a day.

It's not that the property-owner can’t afford a lawn mower. In fact, she has invested thousands of dollars, she says, in her large corner plot: She has added plants that make her property friendly to butterflies and bees and other pollinators, and that restore soil health and prevent erosion. But some neighbors aren’t pleased, because what she hasn’t done is cultivate a lawn.¹

Of course, giving up a lawn to a bit of “rewilding” — that is, letting nature have a chance to restore its own processes — is a rational choice for anybody concerned about the planet’s health.² Irrigating the 50 million acres of lawns in America draws nearly 3 trillion gallons of water a year; mowing and trimming them burns 200 million gallons of gasoline, and fertilizing them spreads 70 million pounds of chemicals. Our love of lawns not only wastes water and pollutes ecosystems; it also increases greenhouse gases and diminishes the biodiversity that sustains the planet.³

Yet lawns persist as living relics of our striving for status. In 17^th-century Europe, aristocrats flaunted their wealth by surrounding their manor homes and castles with expanses of green, which had to be maintained by either vast staffs or herds of livestock. These days, flocks of sheep have been replaced by internal combustion engines, but our manicured lawns remain a legacy of the luxury that was unaffordable to the masses long ago — and that are even now symbols of suburban status.

Beyond that, though, neatly-maintained yards suggest order, which scientists say is a human craving. Indeed, we have come to associate progress in civilization with order. “As such, the future of the modern world is represented as a matter of technical application: a better world is depicted as a more controlled, less ambiguous, less confusing, less contested one,” wrote the social psychologist Joanne Finkelstein three decades ago.⁴ But there’s a downside to all that order. After all, if disorder and uncertainty make us uncomfortable, they can thus propel us toward action to make things right again; comfort, by contrast, leaves us in our ruts.

Which is why we may see our lawns as not just an affront to the environment, but also as a reflection of one of American society’s most significant problems — namely, the nation’s political polarization. Recent research suggests that our political divide is shaped in part by a sense of uncertainty, because that drives people to cling to what they know. Just as lawns squelch the healthy chaos of a thriving landscape, the drive for order and certainty may well be undermining the energy that might yield a healthy political system.

Political psychologists have for years explored the notion that intolerance of uncertainty drives political polarization. That is, people who can’t stand not knowing what’s coming next are more likely to see issues in a sort of black-and-white starkness, and therefore be sharply partisan. Their desire for order outweighs any interest they may have in exploring differing views or hearing out those who disagree with them.⁵

Researchers from three prestigious universities — Brown, Penn and NYU — reported in a study published three years ago that “holding extreme political views satisfies a need for certain and stable beliefs about the world.” They concluded, “This suggests that intolerance to uncertainty may play an outsized role in shaping polarized perceptions.”⁶

You might think that a moderate view would be a logical response to stress, as the more stable choice, but that’s not what people tend to choose. Instead, periods of uncertainty cause people to embrace extremists and ideological purists. It’s unsurprising, then, that Vladimir Putin arose in Russia after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and Xi Jinping emerged from the economic stagnation of China in the early years of this century.

And that, of course, helps to explain the enduring popularity of Donald Trump, who few people a decade ago predicted would emerge as the political phenomenon that he has remained through three presidential election cycles. Trump’s extremism makes him compelling even to some people who consider themselves moderate, because he appeals to those who have a limited tolerance for disorder and uncertainty.

A couple of weeks ago, a small business owner in our nearby small city explained to me, a bit sheepishly, why he couldn’t help but be drawn to Trump. “He’s the last of the politicians who’ll say whatever he thinks,” he said. “I mean, you know right where he stands.”

Well, not really. In some of the rare moments that Trump has articulated rational policy positions, he has often contradicted himself, and he blatantly swung years ago from the establishment liberalism of the elite Manhattan circles he aspired to join to the populist conservatism that now offers him political footing. And, anyway, Trump was often incoherent before Joe Biden made that a thing to track. But laying facts aside, the point made by my businessman friend stands: Trump projects firmness, of the sort that has built the success of other contemporary authoritarian leaders, such as Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Türkiye’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Trump has often spoken admiringly of those foreign leaders who aren’t constrained by the democratic norms that American presidents have always observed. He has made clear his intention to use a second White House term, if he can gain it, to act without consideration for many constitutional restraints. Recent Supreme Court rulings seem to be setting the stage for a president who wishes to grab more personal authority, even if it means breaking the law.

It's ironic that the figure who has brought so much chaos to our society fulfills the desire for order felt by many Americans. But Trump’s rise may be a product of the resentment many people feel about the uncertainty that’s inevitable in a democracy, and his continued success can be explained by the envy they have for the discipline of autocracy. It’s as though we want our political system, no less than our lawns, to display neat edges and clear sightlines.

Nature depends upon diversity for its resilience. Without a wide range of plants, animals and micro-organisms, ecosystems break down, putting at risk the air we breathe and the food we eat. The earth’s survival hinges upon its complexity.⁷

Human interactions likewise draw strength from diversity — the many kinds of people and the many opinions and ideas that must precede progress. That diversity brings with it a level of uncertainty, as well as the opportunity for creativity and growth. A.A. Milne, the creator of Winnie the Pooh, famously observed, “One of the advantages of being disorderly is that one is constantly making exciting discoveries.” Bright teenagers have in the generations since offered up that comment as an excuse for slovenliness, to their parents’ chagrin. But if creativity arises from uncertainty, it is often stifled by order.

It's often hard to welcome uncertainty, and usually uncomfortable to embrace chaos. But the order that is imposed by the drive toward authoritarian rule isn’t compatible with democracy. Ours is a system that always yields a certain level of messiness — which we now witness as the Democratic party stumbles toward a national convention with uncertainty about its chosen leader. That’s not a failure of democracy; it’s a characteristic.

We need to be comfortable with that, and welcome it no less than we welcome the diversity of nature. Our tolerance of uncertainty in the political world will strengthen our democracy, just as your neighborhood will be better if your lush monochromatic lawns give way to nature’s robust abundance.

1. https://www.timesunion.com/hudsonvalley/news/article/catskill-native-lawn-dispute-code-enforcement-19545338.php?utm_content=cta&sid=603d2b91806cc60f72394374&ss=A&st_rid=af605ae4-6b6e-4a99-9b43-fd421904d234&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=headlines&utm_campaign=altu%20%7C%20hudson%20valley%205

2. For both a thoughtful discussion of the issue and some “how-to” guidance, see Basil Camu’s just-published From Wasteland to Wonder: Easy ways we can help heal earth in the sub/urban landscape. Leaf & Limb, Raleigh, NC.

3. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/more-sustainable-and-beautiful-alternatives-grass-lawn

4. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-95905-9

5. https://bigthink.com/the-present/political-polarization-2653027840/

6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33986114/#full-view-affiliation-1

7. https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-is-biodiversity.html

---

DOWNLOAD OR LISTEN NOW: MORE FROM THE UPSTATE AMERICAN

IF YOU’D LIKE TO HEAR MORE of Rex Smith’s views, check www.wamc.org for his weekly on-air commentary aired by Northeast Public Radio. Here’s a link to the latest essay. 

IF YOUR INTEREST IS SPECIFIC TO AMERICAN MEDIA, you’ll want to download the podcast of The Media Project, the 30-minute nationally-syndicated discussion that Rex leads each week on current issues in journalism. In the states where Northeast Public Radio is heard, the program airs at 3 p.m. each Friday, and is rebroadcast at 6 p.m. Sunday. You can tune in live, too, at www.wamc.org. It has been called “a half-hour of talk about finding and telling the truth.”

---

---

THANK YOU for reading The Upstate American, and for joining us in the conversation about *our common ground, this great country. I hope you’ll join us again next week — or send a message with ideas you’d like to see us address.

-REX SMITH