Are we really more politically divided than ever?
Based on 84 scholarly sourcesResearch suggests we aren't necessarily further apart on policy, but we have certainly started hating each other more.
Looking at the United States today, the answer seems obvious. Political rhetoric is scorching, Congress appears deadlocked, and Thanksgiving dinners have become potential minefields. The sense that the country is fracturing is widespread. However, political scientists distinguish between two very different types of division. If you ask whether Americans disagree more on actual policy issues like tax rates or infrastructure spending, the answer is complicated and arguably no. But if you ask whether we dislike the people on the other side more than we used to, the answer is an unequivocal yes.
This phenomenon is known as affective polarization. It refers to the tendency of partisans to view opposing partisans negatively and co-partisans positively. Research consistently shows that while our policy preferences have not necessarily become more extreme, our emotional reactions to our political opponents have intensified dramatically.1, 2 We do not just disagree with the opposition anymore. We fear them, we distrust them, and we increasingly view them as an existential threat.3
The primary driver is not a sudden divergence in what we want the government to do. Instead, it is a process called sorting. Decades ago, the political parties were ideological big tents. You could find conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. Today, those overlaps have vanished. Our political identities now align perfectly with our racial, religious, and geographic identities.4 When you attack someone’s politics today, you are effectively attacking their entire sense of self.
The Difference Between Disagreement and Dislike#
Understanding the current political climate requires separating ideology from affect. Ideological polarization refers to the distance between the policy positions of the two parties. If Democrats all wanted a 90% tax rate and Republicans all wanted 0%, that would be high ideological polarization. Affective polarization is an emotional metric. It measures how warm or cold we feel toward the other side.2
The data suggests that the American public is not nearly as ideologically divided as it feels. Many voters remain moderate or hold a mix of liberal and conservative views.5 The emotional gap, however, has widened into a chasm. In the late 20th century, voters expressed mild preference for their own party and indifference toward the other. Today, negative partisanship drives political behavior. We may not love our own side more, but we certainly hate the other side more.6, 7
The Great Alignment#
If we aren’t arguing about policy much more than we used to, why does it feel so personal? The answer lies in social sorting. In the mid-20th century, a person’s political party did not necessarily predict their religion, their race, or where they lived. There were white southern Democrats and coastal liberal Republicans. These cross-cutting identities meant that even if you disagreed with your neighbor on voting, you might still see them at your church or union hall.4
Over the last fifty years, these identities have stacked on top of each other. The parties have sorted socially and demographically. Today, knowing someone’s party affiliation allows you to guess their race, religion, and cultural tastes with high accuracy.9 This alignment raises the stakes. Politics is no longer just about policy administration. It is a battle between distinct social groups. When identities converge, the us-versus-them psychology kicks in harder, driving affective polarization even without changes in policy views.2, 10
This sorting has also clarified the choices for voters. Some scholars argue this provides clearer signals to the electorate. Others point out that it creates a pluralistic collapse. As opinions and identities align, the social pressures to conform to one’s team increase, reducing the space for nuance.11
The View From the Top#
While the public fights over feelings, the political elites are fighting over policy. Unlike the average voter, members of Congress have become objectively more ideologically polarized. Historical analysis of roll-call votes shows that the distance between the parties in the House and Senate is higher now than at almost any point since the Civil War.8
This elite polarization creates a feedback loop. Voters take cues from party leaders. When leaders frame politics as a war for the soul of the nation, voters respond with increased hostility toward the opposition. The parties have become more homogeneous internally. The moderate middle in Congress has essentially evaporated.12
This divergence among elites complicates the narrative. It suggests that while your neighbor might not be an extremist, the person they voted for likely votes like one. This disconnect feeds the perception that the country is more divided than it is, because the most visible political actors occupy the most extreme positions.
Technology and the Hostile Audience#
Social media often gets blamed for this state of affairs, but the timeline suggests the story is more complex. Polarization trends began rising well before Facebook or Twitter existed.13 The modern media environment has poured gasoline on the fire, however.
The shift from broadcast TV to cable news and then to broadband internet allowed for high-choice media environments. People can now curate their information diets to exclude contrary views. Research has found that access to broadband internet alone is associated with higher levels of partisan hostility.14
Online environments also incentivize conflict. Social media platforms can act as echo chambers, though empirical evidence suggests that most people are exposed to more diverse views than they realize.15 The problem is not necessarily a lack of exposure, but the nature of that exposure. We often see the other side’s worst arguments, framed in the most uncharitable way possible. This fuels meta-perceptions: our beliefs about what the other side thinks. Studies show that partisans consistently overestimate the extremism and hostility of their opponents.16 We think they hate us, so we hate them back.
The Real-World Consequences#
The consequences of this division extend beyond gridlock in Washington. Affective polarization spills over into everyday economic and social life. It affects where we choose to live, who we date, and even who we hire. Research indicates that partisans discriminate against opposing partisans in non-political decisions, sometimes more than they discriminate based on race.3
This social distance creates a dangerous cycle. As we interact less with people from the other party, our caricatures of them go unchallenged. The less we know them, the easier it is to demonize them. This is not just an American phenomenon. Similar trends of affective polarization have been observed in other democracies, suggesting that these are structural shifts in how modern societies organize themselves politically.1, 15
The link between policy disagreement and personal dislike is not unbreakable, however. Interventions that correct misperceptions about the other side can reduce hostility.16 When people learn that their opponents are not as extreme as they imagined, the temperature lowers. The challenge is that our current political and media structures are optimized to obscure that reality, keeping the heat turned up high.