Polarization in Politics
Polarization is persistent in America, and it must be confronted for politics to work.
By Ella Tracy
Politics hinges on discourse. That discourse, however, is near impossible if disagreements divide too strongly. A society flourishes in the exchange of ideas and when positions are challenged. It shrivels when the population is split to extremes.
This is the essence of political polarization. In United States politics, it urges people to one side of the political spectrum or the other. It obstructs effective communication and blocks critical policies from being passed in government. It silences constructive conversation. Yet still it grows, fueled by conflagrated political issues, fear and misinformation.
All it takes is a simple inspection of the United States political landscape to spot polarization raging.
What is polarization?
Political polarization is the divergence of political beliefs away from moderate ideological beliefs. Polarization can be exacerbated in multi-party democratic governments—the United States, for example, has the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Each party has an ideology, with Democrats becoming more liberal and Republicans conservative. Polarization occurs when individuals and political parties become more extreme in their liberal or conservative beliefs, therefore lessening ideological overlap.
What causes it?
Dozens of studies have quantified polarization in recent decades. It has thus become well-documented that polarization has increased in the United States. For example, a 2008 study by Delia Baldassarri and Andrew Gelman, published in The American Journal of Sociology, recorded marginal increases in polarization. A second study conducted in 2021 by T.J. Weber et al. and published in the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, however, showed very clear trends of increasing polarization. Much has changed in the U.S. political climate between 2008 and 2021, so researchers have been able to identify multiple factors that have worsened polarization.
The 2008 study found that U.S. political parties were beginning to improve intraparty consistency by creating more cohesive party platforms. Parties were becoming more closely tied to ideology. Voters could automatically identify which party to vote for based on presumed ideology alone, which resulted in more partisan behavior among the electorate. The parties have only continued to diverge, increasing the likelihood of a self-identified Democratic voter casting a ballot for a Democratic candidate and vice versa for Republican voters.
Research conducted by the Pew Research Center demonstrates how Democratic and Republican parties have moved toward ideological extremes. Credit: Pew Research Center
Dr. Carol Becker, adjunct political science professor at St. Kate’s, was elected to the Minneapolis Board of Estimate and Taxation in 2006. She described how being more moderate secured her winning the election in the past. “Never say anything controversial,” Becker said. “Never make anyone unhappy.” Dr. Becker stated that now it is nearly impossible to get elected without being one of the extremes. This is a result of political parties adhering to specific ideologies. Clear party platforms appeal to voters, contributing to the electorate crystallizing their own beliefs, then demanding that political candidates do the same.
While ideological polarization is certainly real, there is also an element of perceived polarization. Perceived polarization is the extent to which the public believes society is polarized. If one side believes the other is “too extreme,” they will be less willing to communicate with members of a different party. A study conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2014 found that 63% of conservatives and 49% of liberals reported their close friends sharing the same political beliefs. Lack of association causes groups to become politically homogeneous and develop shared in-group realities. These realities often involve misinformation and misunderstanding, which in turn leads to degradation of the out-group and further abstinence from rational communication.
The Pew Research Center’s data on perceptions of the other political party. Ill perceptions have consistently grown between 2016 and 2022. Credit: Pew Research Center
Finally, the impact of social platforms and news sources cannot be ignored. The 2021 study describes the human psychological need to avoid cognitive dissonance in our beliefs, which causes us to seek out self-affirming content. Social media, for example, uses algorithms that aim to draw users back day after day. News sources do the same. Heavily polarized sources such as MSNBC or FOX News keep a consistent viewership by providing content that confirms what those viewers want to hear. Becker says that the content produced by news channels “appears to be news, but it’s really skewed and slanted. … They have reduced their actual news coverage and are instead focusing on hot-button polarization issues that bring people back to them.”
In providing skewed information, viewers of various channels receive different information. “We’re not even close to getting the same information,” Becker says. The spread of misinformation makes people more skeptical of information that contradicts their beliefs. It then becomes easy for them to fall into judgment of the other side, deepening the issue of degradation instead of communication.
Politicians and thought leaders are of little help on social media. They make money when content is engaged with and consistently viewed. What better way to grow one’s social media platform than with content that is shocking, that confirms one side and makes the other outraged? On platforms like Facebook and Twitter, very few people have true intellectual conversations. It’s the hatred and controversy that engages audiences.
“Over time, you have to be more and more extreme to keep [followers],” Becker says. “We’ve basically monetized hatred and monetized harm to each other.” When social media’s celebrity culture is added onto the extremism, we find individuals accepting questionable information from biased influencers. Both the information and the influencers are growing ever more extreme, deepening the divide between political ideologies, extremifying the beliefs of the electorate and perpetuating polarization.
How does it affect individuals and politicians?
Many of us know friends, family members, coworkers or others who we avoid conversations with strictly over political differences. I have personally lessened my association with old friends because it is easier to not talk at all than end up in a fiery debate about a political subject. This condition is indicative of polarization. We have become so consumed with affirming our beliefs, growing ever more extreme, that we are unable to effectively communicate with individuals who hold other beliefs. This has a tremendous impact on our relationships. It deprives us of intellectual diversity. It draws us into circles of like-minded people and closes us off from those who are different, preventing relationships with loved ones from flourishing.
A lack of effective interactions also impacts politicians and legislators. Politics should be about compromise, about give and take that strengthens the country. This relies on rational communication that is rarely found in modern politics. Becker noted that this can be tied back to social media personas. Some politicians adopt the extreme attitude they have on social media because they know it keeps people engaged. That attitude often includes some form of degradation and disbelief of the other, which leads to a total lack of communication necessary for compromise and collaboration.
The implications this has for policy work are tremendous. Polarization diverges the objectives of politicians, which causes animosity in governmental bodies and limits compromise. As a result, more energies are focused toward differences than actually coming to agreements about policies that impact the country. No matter the benefit or importance of partisan bills, some are never passed because of the hostility resulting from polarization.
What can be done about it?
Polarization has been a growing issue for decades. It has become ingrained in the very structure of our government, with some bills passing by slim margins based on who controls Congress and the Oval Office. It is encouraged in broad society by media, misinformation, misconceptions and belief-exclusive groups. It is nearly built into the American democratic system via parties that become ever more associated with specific ideologies. As such, it will be a tremendous challenge to overcome.
Becker says it will take the downfall of the major antagonistic social media platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, to lessen polarization. Given recent events and growing dislike toward both platforms, this might be a natural occurrence. A warning comes with this; smaller, unsupervised cliques could easily form in the absence of major platforms. But taking away major platforms responsible for the spreading of misinformation that contributes to polarization will hopefully be a step in the right direction.
Something similar must occur with news channels, but I believe that is far less likely in the near future. As long as channels continue making money, they are unlikely to stop their current practices, no matter the ethical implications.
If conversation is what is lacking in the political community, a natural solution would be to hold events where individuals across the political spectrum can converse. Becker suggested moderated events to prevent conversation from spiraling to pointless insults. Imagine, for example, a conversation between students from St. Kate’s and St. Thomas. If emphasis is placed on informed discourse, the end result may be a greater understanding of multiple perspectives and improved willingness to collaborate. I am not optimistic enough to believe this would be effective in every community, but widespread moderated conversations encouraging an exchange of ideas could at least begin to close the ideological gap.
As long as severe polarization is allowed to persist, policies, relationships and countries will suffer. It has taken years for the United States to reach the current state of polarization; it will take years to undo it. It is necessary for communities to confront the growing divide. Without people willing to change the status quo, the issues that concern us cannot be solved.
