POLITICAL DIVISION: AMERICA'S BIGGEST PROBLEM
- Adarsh Sheth
- Apr 5
- 16 min read
Updated: Apr 5
By: Adarsh Sheth
THE RISE OF POLARIZATION
A two-party system inherently means members of opposing parties will hold contrasting views on most issues, particularly contentious matters like abortion, gun regulation, immigration, healthcare, government aid programs, and... Trump. Disagreement is good — differences in opinion (ideally) serve as a catalyst for healthy discourse, encouraging us to question our beliefs and thus bring out the best in both ourselves and society. Yet in recent history, we have increasingly shifted away from this ideal and toward division more rooted in ideological supremacy (and candidate-centered politics) than policy disagreement.
Our political climate has reached a stage where we channel our opposition toward each other rather than the policies we represent. Comments on political social media posts exemplify this country's pronounced ideological divide, characterized by hostile reactions and petty insults in response to differing viewpoints. When policy discussion does occur, it is a battle between selective evidence showing our lack of willingness to reach a middle ground.
This behavior from the masses of the public is a direct byproduct of negative partisanship in which candidates for the highest office of this country use hateful language, behavior, and political action to gain a stronger and more loyal voter base*, widening the political divide.
*see section on "BIAS IV: POLITICIANS"
This degradation of political discourse, if we can still call it that, has rendered politics a taboo subject, avoided due to discomfort, fear of conflict, and the futility of engaging with closed-minded perspectives. Why does mentioning "Trump" as I walk down the street draw glances and unease? Why can't we civilly discuss abortion without heated exchanges? How come political discourse hasn't been normalized as a part of everyday life? Why have the issues that govern our lives become so unspeakable? What does that say about our society?
WHY DO WE FEEL THIS WAY?
Politics, at its core, is an issue directly tied to our personal values¹, which have been molded by our development and life experiences since childhood². Shifting our political viewpoints on the most meaningful issues to us can be as difficult as converting to a different faith after an upbringing and lifelong adherence to another. Both are often tied to fundamental aspects of our identity — our values — making us emotionally and personally invested in them.
¹ "Values are an individual's core beliefs and principles, Morals are societal standards of right and wrong, and Ethics are a structured system of principles governing conduct" - University of Cincinnati
When internal biases, algorithmic filtering, political manipulation, and hateful rhetoric reinforce our beliefs, it is understandable to feel upset when confronted by opposing viewpoints. Humans are emotional thinkers (Harvard, NIH). For matters close to heart, our instinctual response to an 'attack' on our core values is anger, especially when done with great intensity. We lash out and close our minds to any possibility of growth.
Take a conflict between a pro-choice and pro-life individual: it is fair for both parties to get upset as they try to explain their stance on their issue, an opinion that has been molded by a culmination of their life experiences and hard-learned lessons. However, this does not happen — the opportunity to articulate our stances is often precluded by the other party's unwillingness to listen or their hostile tendency.
WHO MAGNIFIES DIVISION?
It may make sense why we have this problem, but it has not always been this way. So, what has changed? Influential groups — politicians, political debaters (an extension of political influencers), and the media (news) — alongside social media algorithms and search engines magnify our internal biases to polarize this nation.
There is a clear difference between holding political representatives accountable for corruption and disgraceful behavior, and resorting to rhetoric that disseminates hatred and misinformation. What message does it send when a president of our country calls the other candidate a "radical left lunatic" ³ or their supporters "garbage," ⁴ dividing the very country they are supposed to lead?
³ On July 24th, 2024, Donald Trump called Kamala Harris a "radical left lunatic", a phrase that he has since called others, including Judge James Boasberg earlier this week.
⁴ In October 2024, Joe Biden responded to Tony Hinchcliffe's description of Puerto Rico as a "floating island of garbage" by saying "The only garbage I see out there [are Trump's] supporters."
Let's dive deeper into how these actors use our biases to drive us apart.
➤ BIAS I: SOCIAL MEDIA AND SEARCH ENGINES
As we grow up and anchor our emotional beliefs in logical stances backed by irrefutable data, our biases control the floodgates of information and focus on data backing our narratives and dismissing those that don't. It is a fundamental principle of psychology — confirmation bias — and we all do it, often unknowingly.
Our inherent biases aren't the only concern. Social media content algorithms do it too (e.g. Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, X): they see what content resonates with us and provide us with more of it, trapping us in an echo chamber. "Social media algorithms are designed to promote user engagement, thereby amplifying inherent human biases ... promotes misinformation and polarization as it doesn’t discern the accuracy of the information⁵." They promote engagement by targeting information our brains deem important, summed as "PRIME: prestigious, in-group, moral, or emotional⁶." Targeting the core of human social learning tendencies also makes us vulnerable to bias. "It’s easy for in-group information to foster groupthink and, eventually, extremism. And when social media users see extreme views regularly and accompanied by lots of likes, they may begin to believe the viewpoint is more common than it is.⁶" Providing us with content we increasingly agree with boosts social media user engagement, leading to higher profits for these companies. Our personal biases, and the ones around us, are weaponized against us, just for the financial gain of social media companies.
Search engines (e.g. Google, Bing) feed our biases too, just in a different way. It is plausible to think that personalized content would increase user engagement, which would in turn generate higher ad revenue and collect more data. This suggests that search engines gain from magnifying our biases, but in reality, search engines simply take our own biases and spit them back at us⁷. We phrase searches based on what we want to hear. BBC found that searching "link between coffee and hypertension" and "no link between coffee and hypertension" yields opposite results, proving that we phrase questions in the way we want to hear their answer. This projection of preconceived notions to the sources we choose to read is what confirms our pre-existing biases.
➤ BIAS II: NEWS
Each and every one of us carries internal biases unique to our background, which determine the issues we care about and the intensity of our emotional response — that is natural, the very thing that makes us human, and unavoidable. The person we hear news from shapes our interpretation of said news. Their personal bias is reflected onto us, and when we don't have a strong stance on the issue, it is pushed onto us.
While this bias may be inadvertent, the bias that news organizations consciously decide to share is not. Most news companies, like any business, are driven by the primary goal of maximizing profit and public image, done through catering to a specific audience and exploiting their inherent biases for viewership retention and thus profit. This is not to downplay the importance of a diverse set of perspectives — that is vital to bringing out the truth — but when taken to an extreme, these biases distort the facts and selective coverage of news gives viewers an incomplete and impartial view of the issue. To some extent, all news companies do this, cherry-picking the issues, stances, and facts they report to most strongly resonate with their viewers. While their reporting may be factual, it doesn't provide the full picture, making it a lie of omission.
We are highly susceptible to media bias and misinformation.
➤ BIAS III: DEBATERS
Professional debaters and political influencers tend to be another factor contributing to political division. While skilled in articulating their position and presenting convincing evidence, their inflammatory rhetoric (e.g. Charlie Kirk) and condescending behavior (e.g. Dean Withers) alienate those with differing views. It is like a coach offering advice while constantly belittling you — no matter how valuable the advice, the insults will lead you to ignore them. The best route to persuasion is through empathy and calm discussion of differences, yet that is far too often seen as a sign of weakness in this profession.
These individuals often become successful debaters by making the most convincing data-based arguments, based on true but incomplete facts that fail to provide audiences with the big picture. In a chase after attention, fame, and success, they often delude people into believing what they say, which after a while, is adopted by neutral viewers. Social media and search algorithms then step in, feeding similar content, reinforcing the bias. It shuts individuals off from reality and eventually leads them to refuse to confront logic that contradicts their beliefs.
Some debaters like Charlie Kirk have tied their financial well-being to their success in this profession. This supports the idea that they take on controversial issues to gain popularity through rage-bait. AP: How Trump's MAGA movement filled Charlie Kirk's pockets
Jubilee is a compelling illustration of how political bias is exploited in mainstream political debate for views, and thus financial gain. Despite claiming to bridge divides, debates often break away from respectful discussion to personal insults, harsh language, persistent interruption, and raised voices. "Jubilee enables the close-minded mob mentality characteristic of modern politics through their failure to encourage constructive discourse⁸." Each speaker has the sole goal of winning their argument, thereby ignoring the opposing perspective and failing to accept alternate facts. This channel embodies the idea that "Politics is no longer about the ideas and actions that affect citizens’ lives, but about getting the last word in⁸." The channel is the definition of rage-bait and leaves participants and viewers alike upset at the lack of mutual recognition and acceptance of differing positions.
➤ BIAS IV: POLITICIANS
...the biggest instigator of division in our country.
dem·a·gogue, an accurate description of recent politicians:
a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument.
a person, especially a political leader, who wins support by exciting the emotions of ordinary people rather than by having good or morally right ideas.
Cambridge Dictionary
As America becomes more polarized, many of our politicians take advantage of this, rooting their campaigns in reasons not to vote for the other candidate instead of why to vote for them. They knowingly divide us and exploit our biases for power and fame.
Recent presidential debates overwhelmingly support this new campaign approach. Look at the 2024 presidential debate between (1) Biden and Trump and (2) Trump and Harris — their necessity to belittle their opponent is neither professional nor uniting and marks a stark contrast from presidential debates just 20 years ago. When the candidates for the highest office in the United States of America act immaturely and disrespectfully, it's no surprise that the American people have followed suit.
FOCUSING ON TRUMP, HIS CAMPAIGN, AND SUPPORT
Trump is perhaps the single most polarizing political figure of this time — he draws strong approval and disapproval, with very little middle ground⁹. His entire campaign, and that of many other politicians, is rooted in negative partisanship, best summarized and further explored by these sources.
"Those who held views of immigrants, Muslims, minorities, and feminist women as the undeserving “other” were particularly susceptible to Trump’s appeal in both the primaries and the general election." -University of Cambridge
"In particular, support for Trump is characterized more by out-group hatred than by in-group affection. That is, Trump approval is best explained by a disdain for the Democratic groups he so often attacks. Republican Party approval, on the other hand, is best explained by affection towards the groups who actually vote for Republican candidates." "From referring to Mexicans as 'rapists' and 'child smugglers,' to blocking immigrants from 'shithole countries' and enacting a Muslim ban, Trump’s insensitive comments on race and ethnicity are now par for the course." -New America
FURTHER INSTANCES OF DIVISIVE RHETORIC
“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do.” -JD Vance This seems to be a common ideology amongst all politicians, except it is less about bringing attention to the suffering of the American people and more about attention to their campaigns.
"We don't need another low-IQ person." “This woman is the worst." "She's lazy as hell, and she's got that reputation, and she's a radical left lunatic" "[tell Kamala Harris] You’re a s--- vice president." -Donald Trump; Source: NBC
“[Harris] let our American sons and daughters be raped and murdered at the hands of vicious monsters. She let American communities be conquered,” Trump said at a rally in Michigan on Friday, emphasizing, “They’re conquering your communities.” -Donald Trump; Source: MotherJones
“We gotta lock [Trump] up,” adding, “Politically lock him up. Lock him out. That’s what we have to do.” "The only garbage I see out there [are Trump's] supporters." -Joe Biden; Source: NBC
“On the iPhone, they’ve got that little stock app. I added Tesla to it to give me a little boost during the day — $225 and dropping!” -Tim Walz; Source: Fox
Although both sides have irrefutably recited belittling, hateful and divisive rhetoric, it is clear that Trump and his administration make far more baseless claims and incite more division. Just one example: on three occasions in late 2024 — October 9th regarding the people surrounding Harris, October 13th regarding Adam Schiff, and on October 27th vaguely regarding the Democratic Party — Trump called Democratic Party officials the "enemy from within", which should be dealt with by the National Guard or military if necessary. Such rhetoric implants an 'us versus them' mindset not only in his supporters, but across the American public.
THE EFFECT OF BIASES ➤
I came across a powerful analogy that captures this country's political climate. Paraphrased, it says right now America feels like a roller coaster climbing a steep hill with the tracks ahead of us ripped apart by the very government officials entrusted to keep us safe. We look down and realize our seat belt is gone, again by those in power. When someone dares speak up to say people might die, more than half of riders say "you lost, we won." You reply, "you're on the ride with me too." Far too often, we are led to believe fellow Americans are our enemy while the true threat of rampant government corruption and manipulation that drives us apart remains unchecked. Unity is the only road to progress.
"When people are too busy fighting each other, they forget who is pulling the strings. Division is not a flaw in the system—it’s a strategy to keep corruption safe from scrutiny." -ChatGPT (yes, I quoted ChatGPT)
Our minds have more and more shifted to an 'us versus them' ideology and leaned away from a professional and powerful political platform to one littered with misinformation and manipulation. Instead of recognizing these issues, our politicians, business executives, community leaders, and WE THE PEOPLE look past them and focus our negative energy on fighting the other side. There are always two extreme opinions on any given matter and nearly no middle ground. We fail to see that issues are not black and white and that people side with one particular ideology for reasons that our upbringing has failed us to see. Instead of pushing ourselves to view matters from the other point of view, we resort to personal hatred, serving no productivity and further dividing ourselves.
As the International Catalan Institute for Peace so insightfully states, "each side views the other 'out group' party with increasing distrust, bias and enmity," which leads to "perceptions that 'If you win, I lose'".
LESS REGULATION OF OUR POLITICIANS
"When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king. The palace becomes a circus" -Turkish proverb
Societal division has eroded public demand for accountability from our government officials.
Ironically, 'we citizens' are two sides of the same coin that have more in common than the politicians many of us idolize. Politicians have long been tainted for their practices that prioritize personal gain over public service, including financial exploitation through bribery, kickbacks, and embezzlement, abuse of power such as insider trading and influence peddling, and a systemic lack of transparency and accountability seen by resistance to oversight and suppression of whistleblowers. Paired with inefficiencies due to red tape and partisan stonewalling, public mistrust in the government and its officials has significantly waned since the 1960s.
We delude ourselves into thinking we are 'a part' of the parties we so loyally support and that our representatives are out for the 'little guy'. This blind loyalty (1) feeds this country's polarization which lets officials across both sides of the political spectrum escape accountability; and (2) blinds us from the truth. When half the population stands by outrageous actions on the basis of a shared view on policies and the other half rages for accountability, the effects cancel out leading to no accountability.
Voting tends to be a decision of bad versus worse. There exist politicians who seek office to improve the lives of their constituents and hold fellow officials to a higher standard, but most who do so fail to maintain their composure. (e.g. Al-Green). At the end of the day, we may choose to vote based on policy or character, but party loyalty or negative partisanship should not be a reason.
"Governments are put in place to work for the people but they got it flipped and got us working for them. How come we as 300 million people haven't stopped falling for these divide and conquer techniques and stop fighting each other over the scraps and realize who the real enemy is? Left wing, right wing, all the same bird. There's no such thing as a Democratic or Republican." -Unknown
"You are slowly being locked into your own country. The narrative is that you are 'locking out unwanted people,' but the reality is you are being systematically isolated from the rest of the world not just through news outlets, media, and other digital communications, but physically through closed borders, reduced access to air and land travel, and reduced access to resources that would facilitate relocation. Not sure it's easy for you to see it from the inside or if it's as obvious to you as it is to the rest of us, but it can't be good" -Instagram comment
"[the US] political system is DESIGNED to keep you fighting each other rather than the government" -Instagram comment
SOLUTION
A professor shows a ball to two individuals standing on different sides of it. One says it is white and the other says it's black. They get frustrated, then the professor says this. "What we believe to be 100% right and [those who disagree with us] believe the opposite just as strongly. We may be frustrated, we might grow distant, we may overstep relationships entirely. Stepping into the other person's shoes can make all the difference." He then turns the ball to show the two sides are different colors.
We need to make two changes: (1) encourage orderly political discussion; (2) minimize polarization by cutting bias and misinformation at its source (primarily politicians and the media).
The reason politics is so explosive is rooted in our perception of the situation. Instead of viewing a difference in opinion as an attack on our beliefs, we can see it as a challenge to question facts we may have overlooked. This will either identify a lapse in our logic or reinforce our original stance, both of which are positive outcomes. If we find the other individual's arguments as genuinely inapplicable or illogical, we can continue the conversation with the mindset of 'converting' the individual to our stance. Throughout this process, it is important to communicate with an open mindset and accept the possibility of an idea or set of ideas that may 'convert' you to the other side. Either way, the conversation will end with both parties on the same idea of the issue or an 'agree to disagree' situation where at least both parties will be able to logically and emotionally rationalize the other argument and thus avoid resentment building up against them.
We stand to gain far more when we stand together and hold all officials accountable, regardless of partisanship. Unity does not come at the expense of protest to have our wishes heard — in fact, we should disagree on policy decisions, share our opinions on that, and be receptive to others' concerns. Embracing open conversation would shield us from misinformation from our politicians through the consideration of diverse and critical perspectives. We need to understand just because a leader shares our view on policies doesn't make them the center of our universe. We need to share mutual respect for each other and together, push our politicians to be a beacon of policy instead of an architect of division.
But here is a dose of reality: the majority of this country's population is not mature enough to do this, plus the odds for this to occur have been stacked up against us the entire time. A large population of this country, especially relatively isolated regions and states with traditionalistic political ideology, have beliefs that have been grounded and rooted in people's minds and community for a long time, making it extremely difficult for them to engage in these conversations with an open mind. They may say or even think that they will listen to what the other party says, but they will listen just to pick out any minor flaws instead of pausing and even considering if the greater idea is valid. I say 'they', but this is something that each and every single one of us do, on both sides of the political spectrum.
Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much. If everyone is moving forward together, then success takes care of itself. We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools. -Martin Luther King Jr.
PARTY ALIGNMENT
Many of us may heavily align with a particular party's policies, but adopting the mindset that this makes you a part of that party ties you to it. The pressure of loyalty compels you to overlook, even defend, policies and actions that you would otherwise stand against. Embracing yourself as an independent allows you to adopt the most compelling ideas anywhere from the political spectrum, without being confined to any one party or ideology. Remember, "country over party."
POLARIZATION IN YOUNGER GENERATIONS
Sources are mixed on whether we are the generation of misinformation and polarization.
...Or less defined by rigid ideological divides. This appears more probable.
