Polarization in the United States no longer serves democracy, but instead serves as a tool for those in power. Instead of increasing political polarization and allowing diverse opinions in politics, it focuses on preventing social cohesion by making the democratic and republican parties see each other as enemies. This behavior results in republicans seeing democrats or democrats seeing republicans as “enemies” of the nation, resulting in violent attacks on that group on social media.
A leader, like the President of the United States, often influences this type of behavior. President Donald Trump endorses the behavior of the republican party by labeling democrats as “The Enemy Within.” This fuels citizens of the republican party to attack Democrats or minorities who often support those groups. One Example would be the January 6th attack on the US Capitol, a group of republicans rushed the Capitol to try and get the government to overturn the 2020 election results. This coup was enticed by President Trump when he repeatedly told citizens, “We will stop the steal” or “We will never give up. We will never concede,” in response to him losing the election. This type of polarization only serves to be a cancer to the United States Democracy.
In Rachel Kleinfeld’s article, she argues that the best way to reduce political polarization is to change citizens’ attitudes, specifically by easing their fears that the opposing side wants to undermine democratic norms. Numerous studies have argued that the belief that the other side is breaking democratic norms will lead them to break democratic norms so that they can “compete” against the opposition.
More importantly, the president plays the biggest role in reducing polarization and creating a cohesive society. Often, citizens will mimic the actions of their leaders, so if a president preaches the importance of democratic norms, citizens will do the same. A president who shows unity, encourages empathy across political parties, and rejects extremist ideologies can shift the United States to follow a more cohesive society. Leadership from the top can help shape a political culture that values cooperation instead of conflict.
To protect the United States’ democracy, we need to deal with the problem of political polarization. When leaders use their parties to gain power by making the other party the enemy, it results in a weaker government. This weakens the US and makes it harder to work together. But if leaders, like the president, choose to focus on unity and remind people of the importance of democratic norms, it can help bring people together. Citizens also have a role to play by not letting political parties become their whole identities. If both leaders and citizens work together and focus on our society being cohesive, the country can be more united.
You are right to highlight the crucial part leaders play, but your account underestimates the ways ordinary Americans can blunt elite-driven polarization even when presidents refuse to model restraint. Social scientists who track “affective” polarization find that citizens are less likely to demonize opponents after they engage in structured, cross-partisan contact—town-hall dialogues, deliberative polls, even carefully designed online forums. 1 Though such programs cannot reach everyone, randomized trials show they measurably reduce participants’ willingness to support norm-breaking tactics (court packing, gerrymanders) and increase support for factual news sources. 2 These shifts last for months, suggesting that grass-roots inoculation can work around elite cues rather than relying on them.
Second, the media ecosystem that magnifies presidential rhetoric is not monolithic. Local newspapers still enjoy higher trust than national outlets, and their coverage is less likely to frame politics as tribal warfare. 3 Research by Joshua Darr and colleagues indicates that communities retaining robust local press display lower levels of partisan animus—even controlling for education and demographics—because coverage focuses on shared problems such as zoning or school funding instead of national culture wars. Strengthening local journalism through philanthropic endowments or tax incentives would therefore soften polarization independent of any Oval Office message.
Third, institutional tweaks can lower the stakes that make each election feel existential. Ranked-choice voting, recently adopted in Alaska and Maine, reduces negative campaigning by encouraging candidates to appeal for second-place preferences from the other side. Early evidence shows that voters in these states perceive less bitterness and more substantive discussion during campaigns. 4 Expanding such reforms at state levels could mitigate zero-sum psychology no matter who occupies the White House.
Leadership that denounces extremism is obviously desirable, but democracy should not hinge on presidential grace. By scaling deliberative contact, revitalizing local media, and adopting incentive-altering electoral rules, citizens and state governments can chip away at polarization—even under presidents who stoke it.
Great write-up. Many political leaders exploit narratives like Trump does, that the opposition is an enemy, and supporting them is a problem. This is aligned with the “Us VS them” disparity, and moreover, I think that this kind of rhetoric is connected with negative campaigning as well. Nowadays, attacking opponents rather than promoting oneself has become quite a common feature of political communication. Ultimately, thank you for an interesting and informative blog.
Matthew, thank you for sharing your perspective on political polarization in the United States today. Without a doubt, polarization between Democrats and Republicans, in recent years especially, has created a culture of deep mistrust that is pervasive beyond political spheres. It is crucial that we elect leaders who will effectively govern in a manner that promotes inclusivity and civil discourse across party lines. President Trump is known for his divisive rhetoric in how he aggressively puts down anyone, even former loyalists, who disagree with his “style” of legislating. You cite an article by Rachel Kleinfeld, making the point that diffusing polarization is best done through easing each side’s fear of the other. Presently however, I feel that being fearful of the Trump administration is far from unfounded given his clear violation of forbearance and hence democratic norms. In cases of extremity, do you feel that it is appropriate to actually respond in the opposite manner? I.e. embrace fear and funnel it into positive pushback.
This is an interesting and timely write-up, Matthew! The blog provides a compelling critique of the way polarization in the United States has advanced from a democratic characteristic into a destructive one. It successfully highlights how political division is now less approximately ideological range and more about deep social and partisan hostility, pushed in large elements through elite rhetoric—especially from figures like Donald Trump. The example of the January 6th Capitol attack is in particular powerful in displaying how inflammatory language can translate into real-world democratic threats.
Your reference to Rachel Kleinfeld’s argument approximately changing citizens’ perceptions provides wanted nuance to the dialogue. Rather than treating polarization as something inevitable or in basic terms grassroots, you recognized the pinnacle-down has an effect on political leaders and the way their framing can boost or ease tensions. This analysis identifies the president’s rhetorical alternatives as vital to either worsening or repairing the democratic fabric of society.
What sticks out is the decision to shift responsibility no longer simply to political elites, but to citizens as nicely. The observation stresses that depolarization is both institutional and cultural. While the writing is out there and clear, it also raises complex questions on identity, political norms, and the duties of leadership. Your write-up gives a sensible place to begin for reform between both leaders as well as citizens.