Indivisible Issues: What Our Past Can Tell Us About Polarization Now
The Brooks-Sumner Affair, in which abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner was beaten nearly to death by one of his colleagues, remains one of the most visceral moments of polarization in American history. Photo courtesy of Mike Goad.
Ever since we were one nation indivisible, we have been divided.
“Political polarization” is a term that has become practically ubiquitous in our discourse over the past decade, but its roots are much older than many realize. In the United States, it is an issue that nearly all camps of the political spectrum can recognize, yet consensus on its root cause remains elusive. Indeed, Americans have grown increasingly siloed in recent years, both ideologically and culturally. It feels as if bipartisanship on any issue, much less hot-button ones, is now a fever dream. As political polarization becomes more prevalent in our discourse, it’s important to place it in a larger historical context. The phenomenon is nothing new; it has existed in perpetuity, ebbing and flowing as time goes on and as the country—and its people—develop and change. But many still view our current era with an especial flavor of contempt, leaving a substantial portion of U.S. citizens feeling exhausted, disillusioned, and even hopeless. With incessant news coverage of the latest crises or headache-inducing congressional controversy now a routine part of everyone’s lives, it naturally prompts the question: How did we get here? And more pressingly, what can we do now?
This problem is what my column will set out to answer. Thinking about the issue in terms of history, power, and partisanship will provide a robust framework for productive solution-based discussion. It’s ironic and perhaps exceptionally American that the one thing we can agree on is our disagreement, and if we can leverage that shared dissatisfaction with the status quo, then we may finally be able to climb out of this hole of estrangement. But first, we must recognize that the United States has had multiple periods of division before—in some cases, significantly worse than what we have right now. This piece will delve into five major periods in particular, laying the necessary background for today’s trends.
Beginnings, Civil War, and Aftermath
While parties were not a built-in feature of American republicanism, the stark political divides that took shape in the wake of the founding are a familiar analog to the polarization we experience today. Federalists and Anti-Federalists, the first major parties in American history, fought so viciously over the outlined powers of the Constitution (and in turn the power their respective parties would hold) that by 1804, New England Federalists were contemplating secession. The fundamental divide between advocates for and against strong central government would have lasting ripples through the coming centuries.
Once the United States stabilized itself and its Constitution, though, Americans were more or less unified. Tensions began to intensify noticeably in the decades leading up to the Civil War. As the country settled westward, the legalization of slavery in newly annexed states became an ever-present issue, particularly between the North and the South. The government tried to compromise and appease both sides, but the election of Abraham Lincoln, a vocal opponent to slavery, initiated what was perhaps the starkest example of polarization in national history: the secession of the South from the Union and the formation of the Confederacy, leading to the Civil War. While this is common knowledge in any American history class, the enduring seeds this conflict planted aren’t as well understood. The Civil War revealed and exacerbated tensions that had been brewing for generations, namely those based on class, geography, and most emphatically, race. Embers of American slavery influence political discourse well into today’s climate, with policies addressing systemic racism like DEI, Critical Race Theory, and reparations now centerpieces of partisan conflict. A large part of why division was so extreme during the Civil War was the moral factor: each side held with conviction that they were doing the right thing, so a middle ground was nonexistent. The same phenomenon is abundantly present today, where “moralization” of politics is key to hostilities against either side.
Polarization remained heightened for decades after the war’s close as new developments stoked the flames. During Reconstruction, southern states enforced “Black codes” that sought to limit the rights of newly freed slaves. After the 1867 Reconstruction Act forced an end to this practice, violent white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan grew their influence, enraged by increasing rights and opportunities for Black people in the South. While systemic racism and prejudiced attitudes proliferated in northern states as well, the South was particularly characterized by vitriolic resistance to change. These regional disparities would shape the cultural and political climate in the United States for decades to come.
The Gilded Age
Further along the timeline was the Gilded Age, on the cusp of the 20th century, in which a new type of division presented itself: A period known for rampant political corruption and patronage, the influence of ideology in polarization was surprisingly minimal. The two main parties bickered over power rather than policy, offering little differentiation in their legislative actions. Evidently, polarization exists on two levels: the legislative, where politicians and lawmakers declare uncompromising party loyalty, and the cultural, where lay people take sides that may not always reflect the options they see on their ballot. Even in periods of bipartisanship, not all constituents are fairly represented. The Gilded Age was fraught with rising wealth inequality set forth by urban industrialization and corporate influence, filling the pockets of the rich and powerful while low-wage workers—including southern farmers, newly arrived immigrants, and the urban underclass—faced mounting financial woes. Some populist opposition emerged in the form of the People’s Party, consisting primarily of disgruntled farmers, which advocated for the strengthening of the agricultural sector and mustered 8.5% of the popular vote in the 1892 presidential election before dissolving into the Democratic party in later years. It would not be until the Progressive Era, however, that workers started to gain meaningful legislative power. Here, we see a notable divide based not only on South-versus-North geography but also on class and status; at the turn of the century, the Civil War generation was on its way out, replaced by a budding industrial political landscape defined by economic haves and have-nots.
The New Deal
For a few decades, tribalist rancor was at a lull. Declining immigration, partisan shifts, and a world war all caused American polarization to die down. Then came FDR’s New Deal, a comprehensive public spending initiative that sought to mitigate the effects of the Great Depression. While not quite as extreme as other periods, the New Deal still sparked substantial debate over the role of government and the idea of a “welfare state” for the American people. Backlash at the time was strong, including from the Supreme Court, but the service-based programs came to be widely accepted and many of them are still in effect. What’s politically significant about the New Deal is its party realignment, where different groups came together under the same partisan umbrella in support or opposition to Roosevelt’s initiatives. Blue-collar workers and minority groups flocked to the Democratic party, just as white Protestants and the business-interested middle class embodied the Republicans, which resembles much of today’s party dynamics.
Civil Rights
By the 1950s, party polarization was oddly the solution rather than the problem: Conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, affiliations now long extinct, blurred ideological lines between the two parties, making it difficult for voters to distinguish between them. This wouldn’t last long, however, as a shift in the culture soon bled into the political. The Civil Rights Movement, feminist liberation, and anti-Vietnam War sentiment renewed an emphasis on addressing racism and other social issues and further shifted the makeup of the parties. The Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act in the 1960s significantly expanded opportunities for people of color, who, much like in previous decades, moved in large numbers to the Democratic party. Republicans’ Southern strategy cultivated support from white voters by promoting racist policies and rhetoric. Conceptions of the “conservative Democrat” and “liberal Republican” already began losing their grip as social positions became synonymous with party alignment. But unlike the New Deal era, the Civil Rights climate was primarily split between culture and counterculture, with this schism seeping into partisan institutions only secondarily. Advocates for Black liberation and the anti-war movement were not so much opposed to one party or another as much as the broader institutional status quo. Echoing the zeitgeist of a century prior, the people grew divided between those who championed progress and the acceptance of new ideas and those who stayed mired in traditionalist opposition.
Reagan and the Resurgence of Conservatism
With so much change occurring at such a rapid pace, the pendulum would naturally swing back as time went on. Barry Goldwater, a staunch Republican, lost in a landslide to Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 but would later be credited as a founding pioneer of the new conservative movement. He bolstered Ronald Reagan’s career and brought more extreme visions of individualism, small government, and distrust of elite institutions into the GOP mainstream. The movement grew as Nixon became president four years later, continuing the Southern strategy and popularizing the term “silent majority,” which asserted that the Vietnam War was in fact supported by a large but unheard conservative voting base.
Then, in 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected president and cemented the ideals of the new Republican party, ushering in the so-called resurgence of conservatism. Since then, polarization has grown steadily worse. With an unwavering emphasis on limited government, deregulation, and anti-Communism, as well as a remarkable success rate with getting his legislation passed, Reagan’s appeal to the right was messianic. Many conservatives still hail Reagan as one of the best politicians to hold office in recent decades, with only Donald Trump coming close to matching him in partisan popularity. Democrats didn’t share the same enthusiasm. This deepened the chasm along ideological lines, preluding the wholly polarized system, among both people and parties, in our present day. There would be other, notable developments in the following years—Newt Gingrich and the 1994 Republican Revolution, 9/11 and the Iraq War, social media, and the concept of a “culture war” taking hold—but in the decades leading up to Trump’s election, Reagan’s legacy was omnipresent.
With the groundwork laid out for the “modern era” of political polarization, we can now begin to dissect the intricacies of our current moment. The U.S. has a long and storied past of divisiveness across parties, cultures, and institutions. Reckoning with our governmental structure, regional disparities, and the aftermath of slavery has cast prominent shadows on our discourse, and it is only in light of these historical realities that we can trace the true contours of our great national divide. None of this is to say that our situation is hopelessly embedded in the national character—polarization has receded in the past, and it can do so again—but a keener understanding of history is necessary to place the phenomenon in the proper context. Following pieces in this series will explore the power dynamics underlying the present-day political climate, and where we may be heading in the country’s uncertain future.
This article is the first of three in a column on political polarization in the United States. By delving into the issue’s complex history, its prevalence in the current moment, and its wide-reaching effects on the American public, columnist Elliot Heath paints a fuller picture of how division festers and how we can possibly escape its grasp.
Elliot Heath (CC ’27) is a columnist for CPR planning to study English and film studies. A native New Yorker, he’s passionate about U.S.-based politics, social issues, and the arts. He can be reached at emh2276@columbia.edu.