This week the Washington Post reported that the ultimately successful effort to release the Epstein files started many months ago with a text exchange between Representatives Thomas Massie (Rep.) and Ro Khanna (Dem.).

I found this story particularly intriguing because, as some readers know, I have, over the years, in various contexts, laid out the vast body of sociological and political scientific research demonstrating that relationships, far more than ideological commitments, drive political mobilization, organization, and information transmission. And I have used this research to argue that strengthening and broadening social ties within partisan networks presents an alternative, and as yet under-appreciated, path to responsive and responsible governance.

“Massie, a Kentucky Republican, and Khanna, a California Democrat, had built a relationship over the years. They often chat on the House floor, and this summer, they teamed up on a failed attempt to use a War Powers Resolution to limit the president’s power to take military action against Iran without congressional approval.
At some point, they exchanged cellphone numbers. And when Massie saw Khanna try to use an amendment to force the Justice Department to release the Epstein files in July, he had an idea. He realized the maneuver could be successful if it were led by a Republican.”

But, I have also noted that this research indicates that face-to-face politics might reduce partisan polarization. In Networking the Party, I wrote in response to skeptics worried about polarization:

“That said, it certainly would be concerning if the associational-party path were likely to foment further polarization. On this front, the trepidation appears to be driven by a fear that peer-to-peer strategies dependent on the party faithful (known to be more ideologically extreme) would polarize those with whom they come into contact.

In fact, however, there is reason to have confidence that an associational-party path would mitigate rather than exacerbate polarization. Much of the polarization research focuses on the political effects of partisan media and its dissemination online. But there is little reason to expect the dynamics of social media to permeate old-fashioned face-to-face retail politics. People act differently in person than online. For a variety of psychological reasons (especially anonymity), it appears to be much easier to engage in asocial behaviors online than in person—to be more confrontational, to express more extreme views, and to lie or misrepresent oneself. By contrast, there is a strong incentive when interacting in person to be prosocial—to cooperate and avoid conflict, sometimes to a fault—especially with individuals with whom one has a prior relationship. Certainly, the social-capital literature suggests that knitting together the polity and encouraging civic engagement is less likely to draw out the dark and dysfunctional elements of our politics. To the degree that an associational-party path envisions peer-to-peer mobilization online, it is primarily focused on situations where the connection between those individuals also has a face-to-face manifestation—such as the efforts of the Obama campaign. Particularly in that context, it seems just as plausible that the effect might run the other way: Contact with less ideologically extreme neighbors and associates might create a reality check for the most ideologically extreme because personal connection between peers might mitigate the inclination to simply reinforce one’s beliefs.” (internal citations omitted)

The Massie-Khanna story appears to vindicate that literature: