The United States has been facing political polarization since the early 1970s – but the uprise of technology, media, and freedom of expression has demonstrated how a dramatic shift in political attitudes has become increasingly personal among civilians and has heightened tensions between individuals and parties. The Pew Research Center explains that there is no doubt in the growth of electoral participation, emphasizing “The elections of 2018, 2020, and 2022 were three of the highest-turnout U.S. elections of the retrospective types in decades.” Yet, this increase in involvement introduces strikingly new uncertainty regarding why citizen opinions have become uniquely prominent in the U.S. political landscape and whether they cultivate positive contributions to democracy. Some political scientists are beginning to argue that the escalation of political violence – both verbally and physically – is putting U.S. democracy in jeopardy; and they may be right.
The term “affective polarization” can be used to display the modern disposition of the average U.S. democratic participant. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace hits the bullseye on the strategic use of this term, identifying how “Even though Americans are not as ideologically polarized as they believe themselves to be, they are emotionally polarized…” Recent years’ studies have shown that polarization, especially in the United States, can be dramatized by media and used by political actors as a tool to gain support – feeding participants with a false sense of extreme political division. Emotional polarization, however, has been proven to be a dangerously effective path toward democratic erosion that is incredibly hard to reverse. The risks that affective, or emotional, polarization has on the longevity of democracy include an increase in social division, the fueling of political extremism, and the decrease of institutional trust. When citizens begin to develop an “us versus them” complex, losing faith in their democratic institutions and norms, democracy can quickly begin to lose its foundations and become susceptible to authoritarian (or any anti-democratic) rule.
Furthermore, a dramatic decline in party association among U.S. citizens raises concerns about citizens’ identity and attitudes toward democracy. A 2018 study highlights the decrease in association, writing “Only 56% of young people, ages 18-24, choose to affiliate with Democrat or Republican parties. Over the past decade, membership rates in both major political parties have declined, with more and more Americans preferring to register as independent voters.” (Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, 2018) This disassociation from specific political parties comes with both positive and negative effects on the strength of a democracy. The weakening of party accountability and credibility, along with the fracturing of the common democratic two-party system, are some of the harmful effects of the U.S.’s changing disposition. Certain arguments, however, like how polarization may decrease as a result of fewer people aligning themselves with the Republican or Democrat party, present themselves as possible positives of a changing perspective toward democracy. However, can changing attitudes create long-term positive outcomes for democracy? The cards still say no.
While polarization within the United States and among many democracies across the world will occur naturally, recognizing the danger of negative attitudes toward fellow citizens and democracy itself is crucial to maintaining the health of a strong democracy. The state democracy in America is far from being a lost cause, but requires careful and peaceful coexistence to be successful.
ACHILLES CZEDRICH NIÑALGA
Nice article, Jocelyn! This is quite a compelling writeup on the current situation in America, especially as the 2024 Presidential elections looms near once more. These political cleavages will soon arise, especially as Joe Biden and Donald Trump retake the banners of both Democrat and Republic Parties for the incoming elections, respectively. I do commend how you characterized America’s polarization as “emotional” than “ideological.” I daresay this is similar to the polarization that occurs in Southeast Asian countries, such as the Philippines and Thailand. I believe it was Jennifer McCoy’s “pernicious polarization” that encapsulated how ideological, sociological, or historical rifts become deeply-rooted within the emotions of people; harboring resentment towards other groups, which inevitably results to the dangerous, violent, and destabilizing kind of polarization that can be observed in most countries today, including the US.
Perhaps the only thing I could suggest is to provide a more concrete, solidified conclusion. Your article provides potent gateways for further causal and correlational inquiries regarding American polarization. As you have mentioned, the increase in voter participation comes with a decline of partisanship, which could mean that voters are leaning towards a more middle-grounded approach in selecting their leaders. This could be an indicator of a depolarizing electorate post-Trump; where instead of clinging tightly to the hardline ideologies and policies of the two, major parties, voters are now more open to compromise and negotiation. Weaker partisan participation could also mean fragmentation within parties; where moderates eventually decide to peel themselves away from the parties to widen their political choices, and pick and choose policies they ascribe to. I therefore ask: could this be a sign of the slow disintegration of the two-party system of the US? I would have loved to see analysis on the facts you presented, as these are rich grounds for further analysis regarding division along party lines that results to the affective polarization in America. Overall, excellent work!