Why Is American Politics So Polarising? | Molly Hamill

In the UK, it's a faux pas to ask who someone voted for; Americans often declare their party alignment through exhibits outside their home. The far right is gaining traction across the board and global unhappiness is rising, so there is little doubt that the last thing that we need is partisanship – blind, unwavering faith in a political party prevents us from understanding or even having the imperative political debate we starkly lack at the moment.

In a world where every other billboard in your state is part of a political campaign, it is no wonder it is normalised in America to consider political views as a, or the, central part of one's identity. Approaching the 2024 US election, the polarisation of US politics was palpable – election officials receiving threats, their children being followed home from school – but plenty of the polarisation goes back further than this.

It is no shock that a changing world has led to a change in politics but this tendency towards polarisation has been present in America since their constitution was first written. American politics is split into only two parties. As a result, the parties are rarely pushed to compromise: left wing voters cast their ballots for the Democrats and right wing voters for the Republicans. The innately conflicting groups have no common enemy, no reason to come together, and little (at least political) reason to even be civil. Perhaps not severely so, but this leads nonetheless to distance or polarisation between the parties.

Implicit in the American constitution is the notion that violence is a justifiable means to an end. For instance, the right to bear arms is aimed at facilitating another revolution. There have been over 20 assassination attempts on US presidents (in comparison to 8 in the UK), and more major riots in the last 160 years than any other western democracy, including the recent attack on the White House on the 6th of January 2021. The expectation is that US citizens will turn to violence to ensure their political views and rights are upheld.

Such expectations of violence lead to polarisation within communities. Groups who anticipate or fear violence are likely to see heightened aggression, take defensive measures, and most importantly practice avoidance of the group they expect to conflict with. After the January 6th riots, this expectation increased drastically: 52% of Americans expected to see an increase in political violence over the coming years, and 6 in 10 Americans expected violence from the losing side in the aftermath of the 2024 election. And of course, the key word here is expectation. Gun rights mean that these worries are not just paranoia, but valid concerns. Periods of political uncertainty raise tensions everywhere but if your neighbour is an angry fanatic with a rifle, that concern becomes much more acute.

Alongside this, the rise of social and electronic media in the US has further augmented significant polarisation. Social media tends to create 'echo chambers' (algorithms that only feed content to a user which aligns with that user's views). This generates a skewed perspective where the user feels that the majority agrees with them, and any disagreement is seen as extremist or fringe. This is exacerbated by the fact that they are unlikely to be shown content they disagree with unless it is extremist, since the algorithms of top social media platforms amplify it to maximise engagement. Combined with the relentless spread of misinformation, social media has led to increased partisan animosity en masse. The climate this creates actively shuts down political debate. The debate that does break through the algorithm is known for its lack of civility, and it often ends with both parties being more convinced that the opposing side is stupid, immoral or otherwise disregardable. Over 72% of Americans use social media, at an average of over 2 hours a day; its impacts will be far reaching.

At the time of writing the US has an election in a matter of days, so the effects of polarisation are amplified. However, what the government can do is not straightforward. The US would benefit from changing their election campaigns. If both parties agreed to stop making personal attacks on the presidential candidates a model a sufficient standard of decorum, we might soon see that reflected upon their supporters. If this was combined with a denouncement of violence, a repeat of January 6th could be prevented and we might hope for the creation of a more well educated, thoughtful and less polarised American political system.