Signs of polarization are everywhere, including in your classroom and student organizations.

A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to attend a meeting of Ohio State University’s College Democrats Club. I will openly admit that I am generally liberal in my views on a wide range of issues, so I attend their meetings regularly as a club member. I see myself as a Democrat; however, I try to keep an open mind when considering other views and am not afraid to be critical when I do not agree with the in-group.

With that said, there is a problem with the rhetoric surrounding how we talk about our political opponents that is indicative of the overall increase in polarization that political scientists have observed in the United States. Organizations like College Democrats or College Republicans are not necessarily the problem, but they do display some of the signs of a larger problem within our political system.

Meetings always begin with a welcome and a check-in where members share with one another a high of the week, a low of the week, and something strange that happened to them known as their “water buffalo” (as silly as it sounds, I enjoy hearing about some of the strange things that happen to people).

The atmosphere of the room is very relaxed, as—while it is a political club—the leaders of the club strive to create a community where members get to know each other beyond the value judgment that everyone in the room is a Democrat.

The club brings in speakers almost every week who present various issues through the lens of the Democratic party.  This week’s speaker was a candidate for the Ohio Board of Education, who seeks to represent the 6^th district in and around the city of Columbus.

He shared with us his story and how he decided to run for the state’s board of education after it considered and passed anti-LGBTQ legislation in the past few years. As someone who went to a private school for most of his life, I learned quite a bit about school boards and their role in directing school curriculum and controlling the budget.

Throughout his presentation and during club meetings in general, rhetoric toward its members is generally warm and fuzzy, while it is cold and distant when referring to the opposing side. The language used plays into the identity politics that have come to shape United States politics in the past few years.

This most often took the form of referring to the present group with personal pronouns like “us” or “we” while painting the other side as “they” or “them.” Overtones of sarcasm were certainly present as well when referring to Republican opponents.

One of the most prominent issues that dominates Ohio’s political landscape is the Republican supermajority control over the state legislature. There is plenty of evidence to support Democrats’ claims of Republicans gerrymandering a state that is generally considered “purple;” however, the way that Democrats talk about this issue paints it as a partisan deathmatch. Members of the club and speakers alike will refer to the state as “rigged” with a disdain for the Republican party and its politicians.

This derisive attitude is reflective of attitudes about the other party that paint its members as being one and the same on every issue. In reality, there will almost always be differing opinions within a party on an issue that may not be seen unless you converse with the other side. Mocking their identity or policy platform fails to account for the real problems and grievances that people on the other side are facing. We may not see solutions to a particular issue in the same way; however, to flat-out ignore their complaints is to ignore half of the country.

So, why is this a problem?

There is a plethora of research in psychology on the role of groups and the decisions that we make, which has implications for our political system as we live in a democracy where citizens vote for representatives to form a government. As a result, researchers like Lilliana Mason, among many others, have determined that in-group and out-group sentiments are directly related to political polarization in our country.

Polarization gives rise to prejudice and anger toward opposing viewpoints that bleed outward from simple policy disagreements to social stereotypes. As we draw further and further apart from the other side, distance becomes so extreme that we view the other side as morally wrong: that there is something fundamentally wrong with the people on the other side.

This is frightening for the future of our society. The ability to live and cooperate with people who do not share our views is the foundation of our democracy. Our inability to do so perpetuates the breaking of norms, which are the critical, unspoken rules for the functioning of our political system.

This can even be dangerous on the local level, where institutions like school boards are powerful democratic institutions. They have the ability to create policy on curriculum and budget appropriations and—in an increasingly polarized era—may do so without any regard for opposing viewpoints when voted into office.

Despite some of the evidence of polarization that comes from meetings like College Democrats, I am not here to put all of the blame on them. Similar signs of polarization exist across media, especially with the proliferation of private news sites that have filled new mediums like the internet and social media.

This is not to say that clubs like these should not change their rhetoric; they should. Breaking down barriers to foster understanding of the other side starts with our language and attitude toward the other side.

To encourage change, I hope that leaders of both clubs can come together to do something that benefits the community. This election season has become increasingly bitter, but doing something good for the community, whether that be the Ohio State or the Columbus community, can remind us all that we are citizens of an amazing country; we are all Americans.