“A house divided against itself cannot stand”, said Abraham Lincoln in 1858, almost 3 years before the product of extreme political polarization, the Civil War. Since the beginning of the creation of the political parties, there have been constant clashes between each party over different issues concerning events and ideals of each party. From the transition to factions to parties, each citizen of the United States has witnessed or heard of an issue concerning political polarization. Starting from 1792 to 2023, political polarization has only been increasingly prevalent in our society. As I grew older, I began to notice these instances where polarization and division between the American people became highly evident. Walking down a block in the city would bombard your eyes with posters and propaganda of a certain political party. Every politician I knew had the reputation of being someone snobby or arrogant. The media would be filled with political strife in the US, from the TV shows I watched to the news programs in other countries. All of this is produced by political polarization. I grew to question these partitions in society and why exactly they were being created. Why is America so divided politically, so unable to compromise and settle on a middle ground? This prompted research into how polarization has evolved in the United States. Although superficially unnoticeable, when focusing on American society, it is evident that political polarization has been increasing over time and affecting the citizens of this country.
What first must be known about this issue is how the division began, starting from the onset of the political parties and how they evolved over the years. The two main political parties at the time of political faction conception were the Federalists (run by Alexander Hamilton) and the Anti-Federalists (run by Thomas Jefferson), The Federalists “were more sectional” being much more “obstinately patrician” and “less professionally political of the two” (Schlesinger, xxxv). The Anti-Federalists were “more national in their scope, more rural and frontier in their base, more equalitarian in their rhetoric, more flexible in their leadership and tactics, more interested in incorporating new groups in the political process” (Schlesinger, xxxv). This process of making parties based on different traits is what began this problem of division due to ideals. The parties began to change and take on different names. The Federalist Party met its end after 1800 but later was succeeded by the Whigs who took on the ideas of the Federalists. They would later become the Republican party. The Anti-Federalists became the Democratic-Republican party but split due to different ideologies and polarization, becoming the now, Democratic Party and the Whig Party (Republicans). The concept of division was not a problem solely in the present time; it was never foreign to the United States throughout its history. Schlesinger mentions that after the Civil War, the Democratic Party was “divided and to some degree discredited by the war”, expounding on the divisionary concept throughout the United States’s history. As time continued on, more people began to fit into these categories placed in society, making it their identity.
The “looping effect” as said by Ian Hacking is when a “classification may interact with the people classified” (Hacking, 286). He speaks about how after a classification is made in society, people begin to put themselves through that classification, almost making it their own when looking at the history of politics. Each of these citizens find a classification, either Democratic or Republican, accept this, and make it into their identity. Especially in the present day, where people may sometimes use their political preferences to identify who they are, this effect is occurring. The issue arises when looking at the negative consequences of the looping effect. The looping effect can lead to different issues involving classifications, as Ian Hacking says classifications tend “to invite stereotypes” (Hacking, 289). Polarization caused by different types of political classifications, causes stereotypes to form, therefore, continuously deepening the severity of the divide. The stereotypes created cause more strife to occur as human nature is to react negatively when their identity is insulted. There is almost a ripple effect that exponentially worsens the situational divide occurring here in the United States. Political commentators in 2000 described the Republicans as “God-fearing, Bush-supporting” people “of the South and heartland” and described Democrats as “the godless, Gore-supporting” people “of the coasts and the declining Great Lakes industrial area” (Fiorina and Abrams). These stereotypes can be seen in everyday people as well. Jimmy Kimmel’s reporter went to the conventions of both parties and asked supporters what they thought of the other party. Republicans called Democrats “brainwashed, part of a crime syndicate, and even crazy enough to marry animals” (Democrats vs. Republicans). Democrats called Republicans “racist and without a clue” and one man even said the only good thing about them was that they “didn’t start World War II” (Democrats vs. Republicans). There isn’t any logical reason to label each person of the other party as one of these stereotypes but simply because of discourse and dislike they each throw empty insults at each other. But this behavior seen in the American people stems not from themselves, but because of the influence from higher authorities.
Children tend to adopt many of the habits and positions of their parents, due to the power that their influence can have on them. The same can be said about the fragile, political minds of regular citizens, receiving information and values from politicians and political leaders who only add to the already existing political polarization. One of the reasons stated by Rachel Kleinfeld that “most highly politically engaged Americans may misunderstand the other side is that they correctly estimate the extreme ideological polarization among politicians”. American voters are being given ideologically extreme politicians who they think are their only options, prompting them to believe that America is polarized. These extremist politicians have been running for elections since the emergence of the political parties and have only become worse as time continues on. In the 2020 presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, America watched on as it encountered an incredibly, unprofessional presidential debate. In many instances, the two candidates were just fighting each other with words, throwing insults like “clown”, “liar”, and “lowest of your class”, and even telling the other to “just shut up man” (C-SPAN). When the true goal of this debate was to allow voters to distinguish between the ideas and values of each party, many became distracted by the fighting that politicians create. The true meaning was never attained and this animosity transfers to the supporters of that party’s representative. Sometimes this can involve radical measures caused by extreme political polarization.
Political polarization cannot be taken lightly, especially if not managed, it can transform into an extreme difficulty. Those of opposing parties may at some times feel prompted to defend their ideals and values when threatened. They’re influenced to keep going and increase the growing division in the country. One example of this occurring is the invasion of the Capitol building in 2020, where many extreme Trump supporters stormed the United States Capitol to show their anger and invoke violence. An incident to this extent has not occurred since the War of 1812 when the British burned down the capitol. It is evident how political polarization has been increasingly creating firsts for the new generations. A man at the invasion described the people as “angry”, so much so that you “can feel the rage, the madness” (Vice). People scream “F**k these Democrats!” as they push through the barricades made by the police (Vice). Political polarization influenced these people to illogically storm the Federal United States building in order to generate violence and unjustifiable awareness.
One of the protestors during the capitol invasion screams at the reporter, angrily asking “This is CNN? This better not be CNN” (Vice). It can be inferred how much of a part the media plays in the opinions of many citizens and how that can affect political polarization. The danger of a single story then starts to emerge, a concept brought by Chimamanda Adichie. She uses her own experiences with single stories like her roommate believing that Africa was just “a place of beautiful landscapes, beautiful animals, and incomprehensible people, fighting senseless war, dying of poverty and AIDS, unable to speak for themselves, and waiting to be saved by a kind, white foreigner” (Adichie). She makes the point that looking at a single story of an event or a circumstance can change the whole narrative of that specific thing and could be comprehended completely incorrectly. This applies to how average citizens perceive information about politics. By looking at biased news outlets or informational pieces that give only one, biased story of a political event or ideal, their minds conform to only that ideal and disregard any others. People begin to despise each other, becoming emotionally polarized.
Rachel Kleinfeld recognized this dislike between citizens of opposing parties, diagnosing them as “emotionally polarized (known as “affective polarization”)”, meaning they “do not like members of the other party” (Kleinfeld). I tested this theory by using a small sample size of students in the Sophie Davis Program at The City College of New York, through a survey asking about their political preferences. When asked what political party they felt most matched with, 24.1% said Republican, 34.5% said Democrat and 41.4% said they did not match with a political party. This was to know the general scope of what each person identified as and how they would later affect the results of the survey. Now of those who chose a party, 26.3% agreed with that party’s ideologies, and 73.7% moderately agreed with that party’s ideologies, showing that most students loosely supported their chosen party. When asked how much each student agreed or disagreed that American citizens are divided by politics, 3.4% disagreed strongly, 6.9% agreed moderately, 27.6% agreed, and 62.1% agreed strongly, exemplifying the fact that political polarization is clearly evident in society and recognized by those living in it. When asked if each student distrusted or disliked the opinions and ideologies of the supporters of the other party or any party at all, 24.1% of people answered no and 75.9% of people answered yes, supporting the notion that many people dislike or distrust the opinions of those outside their own party. Interestingly, most of the students who didn’t identify with a party answered that there was political polarization in society and that they distrusted or disliked the values of another party more prominently than those who identified as either Republican or Democrat. This contributes to the fact that these respondents do not see their values in what U.S. politicians are talking about. These results create a new point that people still become divided over politics even if they’re not influenced by a specific political party. The results of this survey may not have the power to generalize the entire population but it can be assumed for general college students, that even though they aren’t influenced by a certain political party, there is still a certain level of dislike and distrust with other parties. With these unexpected results, the survey is still able to support the belief that political polarization has been causing the divide that results in the American people finding themselves in distrust of each other.
The citizens of this country have been facing an invisible enemy with the ability to change the mindset of their brains. But it hasn’t been recognizable to them for centuries since the creation of politics. However, through analysis, the cause of polarization can be pinpointed to several sources. The original political parties constantly dividing over differing political views. The constant and unprofessional quarrel between politicians creates a negative influence over those who associate themselves with that politician’s political party. Specified bias created from different types of media outlets. With political polarization rampaging through the lives of the American people, it can become difficult to focus on the important ideas, actions, and values that would be able to run the country. It is critical to know where information is coming from and who is it being given by in order to bypass the political discrimination of polarization. In this way, the United States can create a house not divided, one that can stand.
Literature Cited
Adichie, Chimamanda Ngozi. “The Danger of a Single Story.” Ted.com, TED Talks, July 2009, www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_ngozi_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story?language=en.
C-SPAN. “First 2020 Presidential Debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden.” YouTube, 29 Sept. 2020, www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW1lY5jFNcQ.
“Democrats vs. Republicans.” Www.youtube.com, www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HyXiu927WU. Accessed 14 Feb. 2023.
Fiorina, Morris P., and Samuel J. Abrams. “Political Polarization in the American Public.” Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 11, no. 1, June 2008, pp. 563–88. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.153836.
Hacking, Ian. “Making up People.” London Review of Books, 17 Aug. 2006, www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v28/n16/ian-hacking/making-up-people.
“How Polarized Do You Think America is?”. Google. Accessed 13 November 2023. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfSxIMRBXQfPVDxd1wBpDCDL5ND6tNzgQ0k1DL7rLEm5ePq0g/viewform?usp=sf_link
Kleinfeld, Rachel. “Polarization, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States: What the Research Says.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 5 Sept. 2023, carnegieendowment.org/2023/09/05/polarization-democracy-and-political-violence-in-united-states-what-research-says-pub-90457.
NW, 1615 L. St, et al. “4. Partisan Stereotypes, Views of Republicans and Democrats as Neighbors.” Pew Research Center – U.S. Politics & Policy, 22 June 2016, www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/06/22/4-partisan-stereotypes-views-of-republicans-and-democrats-as-neighbors/.
Schlesinger, Arthur Meier. “History of U.S. Political Parties”. New York. Chelsea House Publishers. 1973
Vice, “Inside the Capitol Hill Riots – YouTube.” Www.youtube.com, www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfP_5L8epow.
