Indivisible Issues: Stitching Together the American Tapestry
Counter-protesters speak out against the Unite the Right movement in Washington, D.C., indicative of growing cultural tension in American politics. Photo courtesy of Susan Melkisethian.
The bedrock of any sustainable democracy is the electorate it serves. Amidst the various authoritarian regimes that have come and gone over the centuries, democracy remains the only stable system founded by and for the people, an idea that resonates powerfully to this day.
Central to modern American democracy is our two-party system. Republican and Democratic factions make up the vast majority of our legislature, representing their constituents’ needs as they decide the best path forward for the country through efficient policy-making and collaboration. Differing outlooks may spark animated debate at times, but in the end, both sides of the aisle are willing to show respect for their opponent, understand the other’s perspective, and reach a sound compromise on the most optimal approach to any issue.
This model is, of course, entirely fanciful. In reality, American discourse is a cacophony of bitterness, hatred, and division. As the previous two pieces in this series have demonstrated, polarization has embedded itself into our culture and institutions throughout our history, with 21st century technology and the rise of Donald Trump only inflaming tensions that were decades in the making. The burden these trends have placed on partisan institutions is clear: our current legislature is disproportionately right-wing and the mounting “culture war” diminishes ideological overlap between the Democratic and Republican parties now more than ever before. Perhaps an even graver toll, though, is on constituents themselves. It’s one thing for a small cadre of the politically active to face troubling times. But polarization runs deep through the veins of American culture. It has infiltrated nearly every facet of American life and livelihood. The final piece in this series will examine political polarization as an overwhelming force: its wide-reaching effects on people’s everyday experiences, the broader implications for citizen welfare, and proposed solutions to a crisis that so shamelessly eludes us.
Everybody Loses
The most obvious consequence of interpersonal division is the decline in our discourse. Contrary to the idyllic vision of open and productive debate mentioned above, sparring in today’s court of public opinion more closely resembles a turf war than anything else. With phenomena like affective polarization and moralization increasing in prevalence, discussion on any remotely political topic can generate intense hostility, particularly on internet forums and social media. The country’s recent increase in political violence—with the assassination attempt on Trump being only the most recent in a trend dating back several years—is alarming but not surprising; the virulent atmosphere has given rise, in many cases, to extremism.
A notable driver of fierce ideological alignment is a phenomenon known as labeling theory. When a group of people is categorized in a specific way, they often internalize the designation, or label, and behave in a way that better suits outside expectations of that label. For example, if an independent voter were to start seeing themselves as a liberal, their politics would more likely conform to stereotypical liberal beliefs. They might be more inclined to vote a certain way and promote values they subconsciously feel align with their label. Labeling theory is symptomatic of a wider trend toward identity-based partisanship in recent decades.
The last installment in this column touched on how demographics like race, gender, and region play heavily into voting behavior. Less known is how party loyalty leaks into everyday decisions such as dating habits and television preferences. From the biggest differences to the smallest trifles of daily life, we constantly find ways to divide ourselves. As a result, we fall into echo chambers that isolate us from differing perspectives. Our social media habits, in particular, sort us into camps where we only see content that fits into our predisposed worldview. One of the most detrimental impacts on our discourse is not only the animus of modern-day debates, but the lack of discourse in the first place.
This cocktail of psychology and technology has catapulted hateful rhetoric to new heights and, as a result, greatly eroded the country’s mental well-being. Americans see the future overwhelmingly with pessimism and dread. They look upon parties, candidates, and governmental institutions with exhaustion. A 2023 Pew Research survey asked American adults to describe the current state of U.S. politics using just one word or phrase. “Messy,” “Chaos,” and “Corrupt” were common responses—but the number one word was “Divisive.”
People see the effects of polarization on our culture and slowly lose their faith in the U.S. system. To some effect, the feeling is bipartisan: Republicans and Democrats both lament the growing tensions that spike whenever an election draws near. Naturally, each side blames the other, regardless of whether their claims hold water. But trust in the two major parties as a whole has dropped significantly, suggesting deficiencies in both cohorts. 28% of Americans report negative views of Republicans and Democrats alike, the highest share in decades. And both parties have favorability ratings below 40% among the public, also a record low in recent history.
These trends are especially prevalent in young people. Fewer than half of 18-to-24-year-olds voted in the 2020 presidential election, and projections of the 2024 race are similar, even predicting a small decrease in turnout among young Democrats. On both the national and global scale, party registration and electoral participation among youth have dwindled significantly. The reasons for this are complex and wide-ranging: many face difficulties with taking time off work, registering on time, and accessing their voting site compared to older age groups. To be sure, some simply haven’t yet built up the habit of showing up to the polls every year. But for many others, casting a ballot just isn’t a priority. In their eyes, putting so much effort into voting won’t change anything, so it’s best not to register or take time off at all. American sentiments of dread and dissatisfaction are the most prevalent in young adults. Generation Z is disillusioned with politics and the status quo more than anyone else, repelling them from traditional democratic processes.
Much of it is ideological—as the most progressive voting bloc (although not always), many young people find the moderatism of the Democrat-Republican Overton Window that I touched on in my last piece unappealing. In particular, Congress’ bipartisan support of Israel’s ongoing siege of Gaza has inflamed tensions between establishment Democrats and younger leftists since the October 7th attacks, prompting many to turn toward other avenues of political engagement such as protesting. Beyond policy disagreement, though, American youth—and individuals of all ages, for that matter—are discontented by the broader instability and political inertia that so markedly characterize our current era.
This brings us to the third and most sweeping detriment of political division: inaction. The United States is currently experiencing so many crises at once that the word “crisis” itself may need rethinking. Everyday citizens, particularly on the younger side, struggle to afford housing, pay off student loan debt, and accumulate long-term savings. Wealth inequality steadily worsens as we stand to approach irreversible climate catastrophe within a decade. Countless migrants cross the Mexico-United States border with no guarantee of asylum or citizenship. Mass shootings and hate crimes continue to terrorize the public. The list goes on. Despite the urgency of these issues, our nation’s federal government either cannot or will not address them in any major capacity. There may be slight changes enacted here and there, but systemic reform remains out of reach.
As mentioned in my last piece, many components of our governmental system like the electoral college and the filibuster tend to favor Republicans, who often succeed most when left-leaning policies meant to tackle problems like global warming and gun control are curtailed. While liberals and Democrats still bear some blame for neglecting bigger-picture approaches to many of these challenges, conservative Republicans, who have gradually veered to the right in recent decades and have paltry solutions to any ongoing disasters mentioned above, hold the reins to true policy action (or in this case, lack thereof).
With little ideological overlap between the parties, successful compromise on contentious legislation is rare. Many politicians on both sides of the aisle fail to accomplish tangible, helpful policymaking, which takes the heaviest toll on lay people and can severely hamper the nation’s forward trajectory. Under polarization’s stranglehold, neither side benefits. Society rots as our most powerful do little to stop it.
A Way Out
What, then, can be done? How do we even begin to combat a specter as old as the nation itself, one that continues to mystify us with its indecipherable patterns?
Analysts have floated countless potential solutions in the past, with varying degrees of success. As a whole, countering divisions should balance making Americans feel heard and ensuring objective moral standards are upheld. As the country experiences rapid growth in a number of ways, many resistant to change are feeling left behind by the nation’s perpetual motion. It’s important to treat all perspectives with adequate attentiveness and care, which can go a long way in fostering intergroup acceptance.
At the same time, certain tendencies among right-wing circles in particular can make reconciliation difficult. The denial of substantiated facts—global warming skepticism and false claims of election fraud being just some examples—can hinder efforts at compromise and gravely mislead the public. Normalizing hate speech and dishonest campaign tactics can also deepen tensions and give power to harmful actors. As we chart a course forward, we must distinguish between viewpoints that stem from a place of genuine concern and those informed by more malicious intent.
With that in mind, the first piece in this series drew a distinction between polarization in the “legislative” and “cultural” domains––that is, between tensions in partisan institutions as opposed to everyday rancor among lay people. Starting off with the much larger bloc, we can work to reduce affective polarization and interpersonal hostilities through open dialogue and intergroup contact within the American people.
It’s true that in some cases, less exposure to conflicting ideas can help moderate one’s own views and distaste for the other side. But approaching discussions from a mindset of respect and tolerance, as well as deprioritizing party loyalty and prior biases, can enhance our perspectives and make us sympathize with opposing outlooks and backgrounds. Automatically treating anyone with an opinion you disagree with as an enemy gets you nowhere; instead, we can search for common ground in our beliefs and move forward from there, seeking compromise and collaboration on issues demanding urgent action.
While social media companies—nowadays the primary channel for political fisticuffs—could theoretically play a role in sparking productive discourse, the onus ultimately falls on the user to limit hateful and deliberately provocative rhetoric that gets so densely circulated. Unfortunately, average citizens aren’t likely to put in such effort anytime soon. That said, there are plenty of other, more realistic paths to fostering more cordial disagreement both online and in the real world.
For instance, it’s often said that reconciling our ideological differences is transformative in reducing division. While true, looking to ideological similarities, though not the full picture, can also be very helpful. Known in social psychology as “superordinate goals,” common values can unite two or more sides under a larger, shared identity. In a period where identity politics is so prevalent, focusing on points of policy overlap could increase cooperation and amicable discussion on certain issues, as well as lead to more efficient solution-making. It may only address a fraction of the nation’s troubles, but progress in even a few key areas can be profoundly beneficial.
Indeed, a surprising number of positions aren't as controversial as one might assume: alongside shared principles like family, fairness, and compassion, the majority of both Republican and Democratic voters support policies on redistricting transparency, voting accessibility for the disabled, legalizing abortion when the woman’s life is at risk, background checks for gun sales, aid to the homeless, attaching body cameras to police officers, and more. People also tend to push aside their ideological differences in times of great crisis or tragedy. In the aftermath of 9/11, Americans across the political spectrum grew more patriotic, religiously devout, and trustful of politicians and the media.
Of course, superordinate identities are never absolute. Liberals and conservatives may share some foundational morals, but differ in others. For every bipartisan consensus among Democrats and Republicans, there are plenty more pressing matters with little to no agreement between them. And while the days following 9/11 showed strong unity in the United States, Muslim, Arab, and Sikh Americans were largely excluded, facing a surge in hate crimes. The COVID-19 pandemic, which one might think is a national emergency up to par with 9/11, oddly failed to have the same bipartisan effect; instead of coming together, liberals and conservatives diverged in everything from approval of the government’s response to trust in vaccines. It seems that while common ground politics merit greater emphasis, the resulting reforms are still comparatively narrow. The United States is now too polarized to make progress even on the most urgent problems, and shifts in our etiquette, however beneficial to our discourse they may be, won’t do much good in the short term.
In order for the country to evolve past its strained status quo, we must turn to more macroscopic changes. To say that political polarization can be solved simply by cutting off each end of the spectrum to limit ideological deviation would be reductive of the whole issue. Centrism is only contextual to the Overton window, and young people aren’t the only ones who would benefit from a modification to our current model. Increasing the number of center-leaning lawmakers is good for compromise and policy enactment so long as the center itself is acceptable. Ideally, a shift leftward would help curtail the Republican party’s gradual concession to the far-right, which has given way to immensely polarizing yet uber-popular figures like Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan. This would naturally take time as people develop more progressive mindsets and elect representatives that better suit their worldviews.
More mindful educational curricula in particular can reduce polarization and right-wing extremism in the long run by teaching conversational skills and media literacy in relation to politics. For the time being, however, we can curb the influence of the ultraconservative fringe—in both the culture and the legislature—by placing firmer restrictions on hate speech and misinformation in online spaces and creating measures to hold Congresspeople accountable when they use such tactics to garner support. Altering the Overton window to balance the views of the majority with the most optimal policies to benefit them is a tricky task. But a shared understanding of the nation’s problems—as opposed to flat-out denial of their existence, as the far-right tends to do—coupled with healthy ideological diversity on how to fix these problems is a good start.
The most effective methods of diluting the country’s divisions, however, lie in our governmental institutions. The most obvious strategy, of course, is voting. If people, especially youth, show up to cast their ballots in greater numbers for both local and national elections, they’ll elect politicians who represent them properly and who won’t engender such resentment among their constituents. Voting is an integral component to any thriving democracy, but its execution in the American system often draws criticism. A number of proposals can mitigate the drawbacks of the current process: Ranked-choice voting, for example, could potentially lead to more moderate wins given a greater range of choices on the ballot that compel candidates to appeal to more voters. Redistricting to avoid heavily partisan electorates would increase middle-of-the-road politicians who can better compromise on policy. Instituting more referenda, where constituents vote on policies directly rather than policymakers, is especially promising as a means to bypass legislative polarization altogether, and just go by pure popular rule. Also, placing strict limits on campaign contributions makes it so individual donors can’t give the advantage to extreme candidates. And calls for the abolition of the electoral college, the filibuster, and party-based primary voting have all made their mark in recent years, with advocates hoping that a more direct, majoritarian process will help de-cluster the rigid factions of our governing leaders.
Beyond voting on a level playing field, it may be time for a complete reimagining of our electoral makeup. The multi-party system, as opposed to our current two-party system, poses ample opportunity to ideologically diversify the legislature and begin healing polarization’s wounds. This new model, already in place in several countries worldwide, would do away with the winner-take-all system of the Democrat-Republican dynamic and ensure proportional voting, where parties (more than two, usually three to seven) are represented in direct accordance to how many votes they receive. No longer would voting for a third party be seen as a waste of support; instead, smaller parties can emerge and gain influence in Congress through cross-partisan cooperation and alliance building. Coupled with ranked-choice voting, presidential elections can also benefit from multiple parties as candidates appeal to their opponents’ bases for a second-place spot on their ballots, thereby stimulating communication and compromise between coalitions.
The two-party system does have its benefits. Having such large constituencies can guarantee a diverse range of viewpoints within a party while reducing the power of radical factions and promoting wide-spanning consensus on the fittest person to lead. But reality tells a different story. Faith in either party (and in the two-party system itself) is declining, especially among (once again) young people. Our two dominant factions have become more isolated in recent times as ideas, beliefs, and people stray further apart. Amidst the ever-growing us-versus-them clash for lease on the country’s future, there’s no room for disagreement within a party—in order to win an election, or pass a contentious bill, it must be united on all fronts. The two-party system is a key driver of American polarization.
A multi-party alternative consisting of ranked-choice voting and proportional representation would increase voter turnout, celebrate ideological differences, and put an end to the political stuntedness plaguing our government. For right now, though, there are no signs of any structural reordering on the horizon. Our current representatives gain and maintain power through our current two-party model, and they’re unlikely to give it up without serious opposition.
The greatest hope of achieving widespread change, really, is young people. As the newer generation matures into prominent positions in the legislature, they can reprogram the system from the inside. Breaking this two-party machine demands open-minded representatives who are willing to entertain new approaches to governance. Gen Zers, as the biggest detractors from traditional partisanship, are our best bet to begin creating new parties and reshaping the status quo. The multi-party system may be purely hypothetical at the current moment, but a decadeslong transfer of power to younger generations—who are already demonstrating an unwavering desire for institutional accountability—can gradually make it a reality.
Bringing It All Together
None of these solutions are particularly straightforward, nor can they be implemented overnight. It takes tremendous effort to shift the mindset of an entire country when people are at each other’s throats as the default, just as it is difficult to alter the fundamental composition of a near-immovable legislative body, especially when it undermines legislators’ personal interests in preserving power. Yet it is necessary. Political polarization is the backdrop for countless national crises we see today, none of which we have any power to act against until we battle the morass underneath. And understanding our divisions is paramount to getting past them.
In the beginning, it was the Federalists and Anti-Federalists who put up their dukes, shepherding in a perennial clash between the powers of state and central government. Over the centuries, partisan tensions shifted, exchanged, and evolved, moving to and from the nation’s foreground like the ebb and flow of the tides. Eventually, we wound up in the age of the culture war, exacerbated by digital media giants, unchecked online rhetoric, and increasingly affective politics. Our people and politicians alike grew more extreme as policy preference became a declaration of identity. Now, a malaise follows us everywhere we go. Conversations become reconnaissance missions, even warzones. Societal issues deepen if left unattended. Young people and everyone else find themselves disillusioned with age-old systems. Speculation on a second civil war is now commonplace, prompting media premonitions and blockbuster hits, and has only grown more pronounced in recent days following the Trump shooting. Polarization is not an ailment reserved for the politically engaged or any other class of people; it afflicts all Americans, regardless of status, background, or perspective. We collectively look towards the future and feel only dismay.
There is still hope. Simply giving up and accepting the country’s current trajectory would be disrespectful to those who came before us and catastrophic for those who come after. Polarization has reached low-level periods before, and nothing says it can’t do so again. It may be hard to imagine a calm right now when all we see is an endless storm, but even the most estranged periods in our history eventually softened. Through a network of social, cultural, and electoral reforms, we can do the same––taking practical, albeit slow measures to reinvent our mindsets and institutions.
Easier said than done. Our divisions date back to the very foundations on which the nation was built. But that doesn’t mean we’re powerless in their wake. We can still take steps to shape a more perfect union for future generations. It’s frustrating that the policies that strike the hardest against polarization—electoral shifts, redistricting, the multi-party model—are also the most difficult to implement; systemic issues, after all, require systemic solutions. Taking action against deeply embedded governmental structures will be the key to our triumph. With time, and perhaps some fresh faces in our legislature, progress will be within reach.
At the heart of American democracy lies the seeds for equality, pluralism, and the common good. Even as our circumstances grow more dire with each passing day, a better world is still possible. It is our duty to strive for that world, to act against malicious forces seeking to divide us with all our might.
This article is the last of three in a column on political polarization in the United States. By exploring 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’s other pieces can be found here and here.
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.