Political polarization

At its most basic level, political polarization refers to political values and attitudes that have moved away from more central, moderate positions and migrated toward the ideological extremes. Political polarization is most frequently addressed in terms of a binary, two-party political system. However, political scientists acknowledge that more modern polarization is often connected to specific social issues or institutional concerns. Political polarization also exists at varying levels, including elite polarization and popular polarization.

The polarization of politics within the United States has risen since the early twenty-first century, causing some people—within and outside of the United States—to wonder if the divisive behavior of politicians and citizens will have a lasting negative effect on American society. According to the Pew Research Center, the US political polarization in the 2020s began to form decades ago. Research from the center indicates that Democrats and Republicans are more ideologically apart than they have been at any time in the past fifty years. Because of these feelings, citizens are more likely than ever to vote along party lines, even if it means supporting an issue they don’t necessarily advocate. Although experts have had difficulty pinpointing the exact cause of political polarization, political scientists point toward political activism, election policies, in-group biases, and mass media as heavy influencers.

The mass media has long been criticized for sensationalizing news and focusing more on increasing ratings than educating people. Social media in particular has received heavy criticism for perpetuating fake news that is based on political opinion and half-truths instead of facts. Scholars argue that social media helps create “echo chambers” where consumers are exposed only to information that supports their existing beliefs (Bail et al., 2018). The perpetuation of incorrect or skewed information contributes to political polarization as social media discussions become personal attacks based more on emotion than facts. The ease at which social media can transmit information is also important to acknowledge. Information can be sent around the world in literal seconds with no editor to challenge the material presented. These criticisms are not exclusive to the United States. Political polarization is becoming more prevalent in democracies throughout the world.

Overview

Since 1971, Democrats and Republicans in the US House of Representatives and Senate have both moved further away from the center of the political spectrum. In the past, the center of that spectrum represented an abstract space where Democrats and Republicans could find ideological common ground. Also on that spectrum, conservative Democrats could potentially be further right than liberal Republicans. A Pew Research Center report issued in 2022 revealed there were roughly two dozen moderate Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill. This is a stark contrast to the more than 160 moderates that existed in 1971. While both parties have drifted from the ideological center, the Pew report also indicated that Democrats have become somewhat more liberal, while Republicans have become considerably more conservative. Ideological differences in individuals and parties are not the only points that illustrate polarization. The demographics of House members have also shifted. According to the study, nearly half of House Republicans come from the South, while almost half of House Democrats are individuals of color (DeSilver, 2022).

The natural overlap that once occurred between parties has eroded away. In the 1970s, there were 144 House Republicans who were less conservative than the most conservative Democrats. Fifty-two House Democrats were less liberal than the most liberal Republican (DeSilver, 2022). By 2004, any sort of party-overlapping had ended and ideological gaps grew wider. By the 2010s, both political parties adopted extreme ideological views. Not only did Democrats and Republicans support the views of their respective parties and oppose the views of the opposition, but they also held strong feelings against the individual members of the opposing parties.

Causes of polarization

Political activism, election policies, in-group biases, and mass media or media bubbles are all contributing factors to polarization. Typically, parties are polarized by only one item or issue at a time. In the case of political activism, party activists lean more toward extreme ideologies than advocating for something that is more moderate. This can be potentially risky because it almost guarantees no support from members of the opposing parties. Election policies can work in tandem with political activism to create a double-hit for political polarization. Campaign finance laws allow political activists more opportunity to influence who is picked to run for office. Specific voting districts can also be drawn to favor one political party over another. In-group biases and group think can drive political party members to support causes or ideologies that they might not normally. For example, strong and vocal party members may create a sense of belonging for more reticent members and encourage them to jump on the party bandwagon. An individual’s natural desire to belong will help convince the person to not only agree with their group, but to find faults with the opposing group. The faults may be rational or irrational, and may be led by emotion and not logic. Finally, mass media play a major role in causing or reenforcing political polarization. Humans tend to consume media that are reflective of their own ideologies. Instead of obtaining information firsthand from the opposition, political party members frequently rely on media outlets that report information that mirrors their personal beliefs. In addition, social media algorithms may lead party members to more extreme content, as opposed to more moderate information. This, in turn, leads many individuals to see those fringe beliefs as the norm and adopt them accordingly.

Types of polarization

Elite and popular (or mass) polarization are two types or levels of political polarization. Elite polarization refers to the conflict that exists between the party in control of government and the party that was defeated. Although it is often associated with parliamentary governments, aspects of elite polarization can be found in other government formats as well. In the United States, political parties are becoming more homogenous in terms of their beliefs. According to the European Center for Populism Studies, popular polarization “occurs when an electorate’s attitudes towards political issues, policies and celebrated figures are neatly divided along party lines” (Political Polarization). Leaders of political parties attack the morality of other parties and argue that the other parties present a threat to everyone.

Political polarization may also manifest as affective or ideological. Affective polarization is the “gap” between positive feelings about one’s political party and negative feelings about an opposing one (Druckman & Levy, 2021). Ideological polarization takes beliefs, particularly on social issues, to such extreme extents that opposing party members can find no common ground on which to come to a possible consensus. Though definitions exist for and discussions surround political polarization, Verlan and Hyrum Lewis, authors of The Myth of Left and Right, argue that polarization is a myth. The two criticize the left-right model of US politics, and say it reduces politics to a one-dimensional graph (Lewis & Lewis, 2022). They claim that liberal and conservative philosophies are not themselves unified and have a wide spectrum of opinions and viewpoints within each group. Therefore, liberals and conservative do not band together under a specific ideology, but rather form an allegiance under the concept of party loyalty.

Polarization and politicization of COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic that began spreading worldwide in the early months of 2020 permeated all areas of life, including politics. A study published in October 2020 suggests that high levels of politicization and polarization in the early months of COVID-19 coverage may have added to the division of US attitudes about the virus (Hart, Chinn, & Soroka, 2020). Although medical professionals were adamant that COVID-19 posed a significant risk to the population, politicians and the general public were divided across political ideological lines as to their feelings about the virus and the responses provided by the government and scientific communities. Hart, Chinn, and Soroka (2020) also noted that political figures were frequently referenced in COVID-19 coverage. This type of coverage politicized an issue and led media consumers to rely on the words of politicians over scientists for information. Since individuals obtain most information on novel issues from mass media, it is important that the information consumed is objective and accurate.

Further Insights: Social media and political polarization

The amount of social media content competing for consumers’ attention doubles nearly every year. Journalist Max Fisher addresses the impact of this content, particularly in terms of polarization, in his book, The Chaos Machine (2022). Social media users may only consume a portion of the messages available to them. However, algorithms can make those posts that receive the most interaction—frequently the most divisive and emotional—the most prominent. The focus on extreme content can fuel polarity and encourage emotional responses instead of educated discourse.

In 2023, a majority of Americans use social media platforms like YouTube and Facebook. YouTube is the most commonly used online platform, with 81 percent of Americans utilizing the site, an increase in eight percentage points since 2019, according to a 2021 Pew Research report. Facebook growth has plateaued, but the platform continues to be popular among adults in the United States. Worldwide, Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp represent the new public sphere for engaging in all forms of discourse, particularly when addressing political and social issues. A 2022 report also conducted by the Pew Research Center analyzed international opinions on social media and politics. A majority of those surveyed stated they believed social media was a “good thing” for democracy in their country. However, 64 percent of US participants acknowledged a negative political impact from the internet and social media. Republicans and Independents leaning toward the Republican Party were more likely than Democrats or Democratic-leaning Independents to note the adverse effects. Worldwide, participants did note negative aspects between social media and politics. About 84 percent believed that people are easier to manipulate with false information and rumors (Wike, et al., 2022).

False information and rumors can both be contributors to political polarization, a trend that US participants also addressed in the survey. Of the nineteen countries surveyed, the United States, at 79 percent, ranked highest among those who believed that the internet and social media have made people more divided in their political opinions. Another 69 percent of Americans believed that the internet and social media have made people less civil in how they talk about politics. This was again the highest percentage among those countries participating. The concern is not new. In 2019, National Public Radio (NPR) spent an entire month examining civility in America. Social media civility in an increasingly polarized America was just one of the issues discussed. Some people point to the anonymity of social media as fostering an environment that is ripe for rude and aggressive behavior. Others believe that the speed and consistency of social media promote knee-jerk reactions that would never occur if the communication was in-person.

Viewpoints

From a political perspective, the United States is polarizing faster than other democratic countries. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace gathered a group of scholars in 2019 to discuss nine countries that were then dealing with political polarization. The countries included Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Poland, Turkey, and the United States. Political leaders and social media were frequently blamed for causing and promoting polarization. Once polarization settles into a country, it can damage the country from its infrastructure on out, making rebuilding extremely difficult. The United States shares similarities with the countries involved in the study. However, US polarization is also unique, stemming from more than five decades of contesting visions for the country.

In a 2020 report published in the journal Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, Gordon Heltzel and Kristin Lauren see two potential scenarios involving polarization in the United States. One outcome for the current polarization of the United States is that tensions will increase. As tensions increase, factions are likely to further separate from one another, creating a sense of elevated polarization that creates a continual cycle. A second possibility is based on the United States presumedly having reached its maximum height of polarization. This time period occurs when citizens grow weary of arguments based on emotions instead of facts and desire civil discourse. Though much discussion around polarization speaks to its negative consequences, some political scientists suggest that polarization has made it easier to understand what individual parties advocate, allowing voters to make better informed decisions. However, that sentiment is not one that is widely advocated.

About the Author

Kalen Churcher earned her PhD in mass communications from the Penn State University in 2014. Currently, she is an associate professor of communication studies at Wilkes University in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. Before entering academia, she worked in both the journalism and public relations fields.

Bibliography

Auxier, B. & Anderson, M. (2021). Social Media Use in 2021. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/04/07/social-media-use-in-2021/.

Carothers, T. & O’Donohue, A. (2019). How to Understand the Global Spread of Political Polarization. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Retrieved from carnegieendowment.org/2019/10/01/how-to-understand-global-spread-of-political-polarization-pub-79893.

DeSilver, D. (2022). The Polarization in Today’s Congress has Roots that Go Back Decades. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/10/the-polarization-in-todays-congress-has-roots-that-go-back-decades/.

Druckman, J. & Levy, J. (2021). Affective Polarization in the American Public. Northwestern Institute For Policy Research. Retrieved from www.ipr.northwestern.edu/documents/working-papers/2021/wp-21-27.pdf.

Fisher, Max. (2022). The Chaos Machine: The Inside Story of How Social Media Rewired Our Minds and Our World. Little Brown and Company.

Hart, P.S., Chinn, S., & Soroka, S. (2020). Politicization and Polarization in COVID-19 News Coverage. Science Communication 42(5), 679–697. Retrieved from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7447862/.

Heltzel, G. & Lurin, K. (2020). Polarization in America: Two Possible Futures. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences (34),179–84. Retrieved from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7201237/pdf/main.pdf.

Layman, G.C., Carsey, T.M., & Horowitz, J.M. (2006). Party Polarization in American Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences. Annual Reviews of Political Science (9), 83–110. Retrieved from www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/LaymanCarseyReview2006.pdf.

Lewis, V. & Lewis, H. (17 July 2022). The Myth of Ideological Polarization. The Wall Street Journal.Retrieved from www.wsj.com/articles/ideological-polarization-spectrum-myth-right-left-elon-musk-woke-11655481615.

Wike, R., Silver, L., Fetterolf, J., Huang, C., Austin, S., Clancy, L. & Gubbala, S. (2022). Social Media Seen as Mostly Good for Democracy Across Many Nations, But U.S. is a Major Outlier. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/12/06/social-media-seen-as-mostly-good-for-democracy-across-many-nations-but-u-s-is-a-major-outlier/.