America has arguably never been this divided politically since the years leading up to the Civil War. Mass protests happen on almost a monthly basis, civil unrest has culminated in violent clashes between ideologies, and extremist groups on the left and right garner ever more power and support. It has become nearly impossible to not see a political message in any major medium or advertisement, Captain Crunch now has to release statements ensuring their products do not endorse Nazism while Papa John’s clashes with the NFL over kneeling protests on Twitter. Nearly everything we absorb on social media or entertainment is in some way trying to promote a stance. Twitter and YouTube are both frequently blasted for excessive political censorship while Facebook is forced to alter their entire newsfeed structure just to battle “fake news” (Bovard, USA Today).  The government itself has become so partisan that the House seems nearly incapable of compromise on any issue, no matter how big or small. The Senate finds itself plagued by an ever-growing divide between its members, incapable of even passing a budget or tax reform. The Office of the President has arguably never been so vehemently hated by one group and so uncompromisingly loved by another since the election of Abraham Lincoln, President Trump’s approval rating averaging a dismal 39% for his first year. Quite simply the left and right are more divided than ever. Republicans and Democrats find it progressively harder to agree on anything, while the American people find it progressively harder to remain independent in the great culture war. The root of this political polarization lies not in the past few years, but is rather the culmination of decades of historical events, leaders, and movements. While dozens of issues have contributed to this political divide, none find themselves as prominent and as directly responsible as the Presidential Election of 1968, the rise of the New Left, and the Presidential Election of 2016. 

The seeds of partisan discontent and political divide first began to rear its ugly head during the Presidential Election of 1968. Leading up to the election the United States was faced with some of the most harrowing chapters in its history. Leading up the election the nation was forced to grapple with the assassination of President John F Kennedy in 1963, the slow and painful march of the Vietnam War, the race riots of 1967, the assassination of Senator Robert F Kennedy in June of 1968, and the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr only seven months prior (Barber, 12).  Then President Lyndon B Johnson failed to make matters better, as the once beloved Texan seemed incapable of calming mounting political tensions. By the summer of 1967, often termed “The Long Hot Summer” 159 race riots broke out across the nation’s major cities while protests against the Vietnam War mounted into full scale clashes between police and protestors (Fineman, Huffington Post). Tensions only increased as President Johnson declined to seek reelection, and the Democratic Convention of 1968 was turned into an upheaval of violent clashes between anti-war demonstrators, establishment Democrats, and police. Conservatives saw the state of the convention as a clear sign of the inability of the Democrats to even govern their own party, let alone the nation as a whole. Conservatives and independents alike flocked in droves towards former Vice President of the United States, Richard Nixon.  Nixon campaigned for what he called “the Silent Majority,” the metaphorical common American who had grown dissatisfied with the Vietnam War, the counterculture revolution, and the lack of federal authority in cities like Detroit and Chicago (Baber, 20). He promised tax cuts, a return to a more orderly America, and a revitalization of pragmatic conservatism. To conservatives, Nixon was a shining light of order in a world quickly turning to chaos. To Democrats, Nixon was a threat to everything they had fought so hard to get accomplished with Kennedy and Johnson. He pushed for gradual troop withdrawal in Vietnam, budget cuts to President Johnson’s welfare programs, and sought what many believed to be the implementation of martial law in riot-prone cities. President Nixon became the epitome of 1960s conservatism and the bastion for everything the Democrats of the 1960s were against. Partisan divide was made worse with the appearance of third party candidate, Governor George Wallace of Alabama. Wallace campaigned on a strong segregationist platform, promising a reversal of the Civil Rights act of 1964 and federal implementation of Southern segregationist policies (Fineman, Huffington Post). Wallace proved popular amongst Democrats in the South, as many Dixiecrats cast their support for Wallace over Democratic Nominee Vice President Hubert Humphrey. This further splintered the Democratic Party, and further created a divide amongst the working-class Democrats of the North with their rural farming Democrats of the South. President Nixon seized upon this opportunity, and won the Presidency with 60.7% of the electoral votes. The Democratic Party was in free fall as Northern Democrats and Southern Dixiecrats quarreled over civil rights, the Vietnam War, and the economy. Republicans assumed a majority control for the first time since Eisenhower and quickly began a massive campaign of cutting inflation, reducing federal funding, and withdrawals from the Vietnam War. The country was thrust into political turmoil as the war dragged on, inflation mounted, and at last the Watergate scandal brought the Nixon Administration to its knees. While the resignation of Nixon from the Presidency marked the beginning of the end for bipartisanship in American politics, it was his election which prompted such stark ideological divide between the left and right. In the election of 1968 the divide between politics extended further than simple dispute over policy, but began to leak into every aspect of culture and society (Lozada, Washington Post). Politics were no longer the work of government and elected officials, but now the lines by which American society was divided. The hostility of political discourse, the mass protests cycles, and the inability of communication between sides all take their beginnings from this election. 

While the establishment members of the Democratic Party were in disarray, a new faction of leftism began to arise across the country. This was a new wave of liberalism, less classical than that of Kennedy or FDR and rather more akin to the social movements that had taken European youth by storm in France and England a decade earlier (Klesser, Claremont Institute).  This was a New Left, a movement dedicated to tackling social disparities and injustices rather than the more pragmatic agenda of the older Democratic Party. The New Left in America traces its roots to the formation of the Students for a Democratic Society, a campus based activist movement fighting for gay rights, reproductive rights, racial equality, and protesting the Vietnam War. With influences from intellectuals like Freud, Marx, and Marcuse the New Left was devoted around the idea of a fully equal and fully progressive American society. They were more radical in their demands, less receptive to authority, and considered both older generation Republicans and Democrats counter-productive. The New Left quickly spread into more prominent positions as the counter-culture movement boomed in the later 1960s and 1970s. Dissent furthered as conservatives on campus argued they were being alienated, their ideas neither welcome or accepted as Professors increasingly became more liberal (Professors and their Politics). A study in 1990 by the Higher Education Research Center showed only 42% of college professors identified as far left, by 2014 this number had increased to a staggering 60% (Ingraham, The Washington Post). In the same way there is frequent concern for the overwhelming conservative majority in the military, there is a potential cause for alarm from conservatives when 60% of college educators identify with an ideology in direct opposition to their own. At a surface level this may seem to be nothing more than a trivial statistic, does it really matter that much if a majority of educators identify as far left? Colleges like UC Berkley would assert that yes, it matters very much. An attempt by Ben Shapiro to speak on the UC Berkeley resulted in a riot, thousands in property damages, and several violent clashes between protestors and Shapiro supporters. All the while, Shapiro protestors demonized the conservative speaker as a proponent of Nazism and fascism. Shapiro is a devout Jew.   

Soon the New Left gave rise to their own political powerhouses of the modern age, Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Al Franken, and Senator Tammy Baldwin to name a few (O’Brien, American Political Science Journal). To the New Left, now largely the modern left, this ideology of progressivism was the hallmark of American society. Promoting inclusiveness, diversity, and favoring the underdog, these new platforms were seen by the Left as the culmination of political thought into a worldlier and more realized society. But to the Right it was cleverly disguised Marxism, the creeping of Leninist theory masked in the name of progressivism and diversity.  This core ideological divide, an inability to see the view point of the other, has so negatively harmed American politics that discourse has virtually become a thing of the past. The parties are more divided than ever, and consequently the average American, because the New Left seemed so radical in the eyes of conservatives and so truthful in the eyes of liberals. No longer are there dissenting voters or chances to persuade to the other side. Rather Congressional voting is largely set in stone based upon party. Even during the impeachment proceedings of President Bill Clinton, House voting was nearly straight party down the line (McAdams, 115). Compromise has become a thing of the past, and instead allegiance to either the Left or the Right takes position over principle or constituent needs. This deeply rooted divided amongst ideology finds itself largely ebbing from the growth of the New Left into American culture. 

It was only a matter of time before the culture of polarizing politics was at last crystalized into a single election. If the Election of 1968 was the first brick laid of divisive politics, the Election of 2016 was the finished wall, no pun intended, of American political culture. The Election was immediately distinct in the sheer number of candidates seeking their respective party nominations.  The DNC was filled with a modest 6 candidates, large but by no means uncommon in a non-reelection election. The RNC however opened with a staggering seventeen candidates, the largest primary field the party has had in over a century (Catanese, US News). The divide amongst politics was made evident even within the parties themselves. The RNC was filled with over a dozen candidates from across the entire right-wing spectrum from all over the country. Rust belt moderate John Kasich of Ohio, hardline New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, constitutionally committed Ted Cruz of Texas, libertarian Rand Paul of Kentucky, and even neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson. And of course, the man who would go on to secure the Presidency, Donald J. Trump of New York. The RNC primary debates began largely civil and typical. It was not long before civil discourse became shouting, yelling, and even remarks about genital size. Political debate quickly evolved into who could secure the strongest reaction from the crowd, crack the best one liner, and deliver the most brutal insults. The contest for the most powerful position in the world quickly became entertainment and reality television. 

The nature of polarization had now even infected the parties themselves. No longer was it Republican vs Democrat, Left vs Right, but now faction vs faction. The divide between a Kasich supporter and a Trump supporter seemed as great as the divide between a Reagan supporter and a Carter supporter. The Democrat Party was faced with a similar issue, though condensed to only two candidates. Secretary of State and former First Lady Hillary R. Clinton represented the establishment of the Party. A powerful icon of female power, a staple in American politics since the early 90s, and a leading force in the Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton was the embodiment of the ruling faction of the Democratic Party. A year prior, her ascension to the nomination seemed almost certain, but that was before Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont announced his intention to run. Quickly gaining momentum as an outside candidate, much like President Trump in the RNC, Senator Sanders quickly compiled a strong base. His “Democratic Socialism” was the New Left at last fully realized, a platform so progressive and leftist that it was virtually impossible to compare to the stances of President Clinton, Kennedy, or Carter. Both candidates were the fears of the current American Right in living form. Hillary was a powerful female leader, at the very pinnacle of establishment power, and promising the continuation of the Obama era policies. Senator Sanders was arguably even worse to conservatives, a candidate who could openly use the term “socialist” in his campaign. These two powerhouses of the Left were everything the modern Republican had come to hate, and largely two options that never believed would occur in their lifetimes. But to the Left this was the realization of decades of work and struggle. A woman at last had the Presidency within her grasp, immediately following the election of the first African American President. And Senator Sanders campaigned on promises, such as socialized health-care, once thought impossible for a mainstream candidate to push. Senator Sanders pushed strongly for greatly relaxed immigration policies, championing the right for working illegals to remain within the country, an end to illegal alien detention, and the expansion of work based visas to include families of visa workers (Sanders). Compare this to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 signed into law by President Bill Clinton, which quite starkly contrasted with everything Senator Sanders proposed and included harsher immigration penalties, increased autonomy for border control agents, and reduction of visa workers family extensions (Susser). President Clinton, who conservatives once considered a far-left candidate in his own right, barely seems capable of being from the same party as Senator Sanders. 

As the Democrats took a hard turn Left with the growing support of Bernie Sanders, the Republicans took a hard turn right. Against all odds and predictions, Donald Trump was dominating the primary field. Each state and each debate seemed to only strengthen his support as he consistently broke voting records in every state he visited, seeming to tap into what he, like Nixon, referred to as the new “Silent Majority” (Gaughan, Scientific American).  To the Right this was the great leader they had so longed for during the Obama Administration. A billionaire business man, an outsider with no Washington ties, and someone not afraid to his speak his mind. He was as tough on immigration as he was at calling out the hypocrisies of his own party. To the Left, this was everything they opposed in human form. A 70 something year old white male born to wealth and fortune, President Trump’s strong immigration stances and Muslim rhetoric seemed a return to an era in American history that was thought to have long been left behind (Friedersdorf, The Atlantic).  Compare President Trump’s statements on the Islamic world to that of former Republican President George W. Bush. President Trump openly stated on “Hannity” that if elected he’ll have, “no choice”, but to shut down Mosques where “bad things are happening.” 14 years prior, days after the world-shaking terrorist attacks of 9/11, President Bush did not call for the banning of Mosques or a travel ban on Islamic nations. Instead President Bush, speaking at a Mosque no less, proclaimed Islam a religion of peace and stated, “[t]hese acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith.” 

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump quickly became more than candidates. The two quickly became symbols of what divided the parties and the nation as a whole. Their names became akin to taboo on the opposing sides, grouped into the same category as Stalin to the Right and Hitler to the Left. Statistically, they were both the most disliked candidate either side has every produced in American history (Bridges, Business Insider). The divide of Americans was evident everywhere, from Facebook traffic to late night talk show. Violent altercations at rallies, riots in major cities such as Trump’s cancelled Chicago campaign stop, and insulting discourse at the Presidential debates all became common increasingly common as the election dragged on. The election of Donald J. Trump as President placed the nail in the coffin of political divide as hundreds of thousands took to the streets the day after the election to protest. The WikiLeaks release of the Clinton emails did little to mend relations, as both Republicans and Sanders supporting Democrats became reaffirmed in their hatred for the establishment Democratic Party. Now nearly a year into the Trump Presidency, American politics has devolved into cries of conspiracy, frequent clashes (often violent), and a total inability to compromise between Republican and Democrat officials. But why does any of this matter? 

Division in politics is natural, the very essence of politics is groups of conflicting ideas attempting to accomplish their own goals. Political parties have existed in this country, and the world, for centuries upon centuries. What makes politics work is largely the underlying trend that parties must compromise in some way to pass legislation. If they cannot compromise than nothing will ever be accomplished. Often this can be a positive as legislation which cannot be agreed upon in some way by both sides should perhaps not pass. However, issues begin to occur when parties never compromise. Bills and legislation remain unpassed, issues remain unchanged, and leaders fail to perform the duties they were elected to do. A state of limbo begins to breed in the government, as is evident in the current state of Washington politics, in which politicians merely seek reelection and a paycheck. The beauty of the American system has long been the ability for opposing sides to reach compromise. The Left needs the Right as much as the Right needs the Left. Societies which lack one or the other often trend towards dark paths of totalitarian regimes, ranging from the far-right fascism of Nazi Germany to the far-left communism of modern China. A society at war with itself cannot function, and at the moment America is in the midst of a cultural war between liberalism and conservatism. Political polarization has begun to reach even beyond the left and right, and is now beginning to consume the ideologies themselves. Take the violent clashes between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders supporters in May of last year in which the two sides had multiple arrests, threw chairs at Sen. Barbara Boxer, and destroyed venue property. 

There are a host of arguments behind what has truly divided America beyond the three given points. Many argue current political polarization is the direct result of Americans lacking a common enemy. Throughout history America has largely been faced with some common threat, either foreign or domestic. Many argue that with the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 90s, America was left without a common enemy and thus found one within herself. This is a very general statement and one that fails to account for several factors. Firstly, several instances throughout US history have found the country without a common enemy, most notably the 1920s -which one of the most successful periods in American history but at the time we lacked any major foe. Secondly, America has numerous enemies throughout the world in the present day. America is still engaged in numerous fronts in the Middle East, the threat of radical Islamic terrorist cells is still a huge concern, and North Korea grows progressively more dangerous. Many also point to recent immigration trends as creating a divide between political ideologies. However, this has several issues as this is by no means the first time in American history mass immigration took effect. There have been four major waves of immigration since 1776, three of which occurred during times of relative political peace and successful eras in American history. The current immigration wave largely traces its roots back to the immigration reforms under taken not by a single party, but rather the Reagan Administration’s Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which was done in bipartisan effort with the Democrat controlled Congress. It is unclear how immigration would create such a divide if the current immigration wave was started through bipartisan cooperation. 

Dozens upon dozens of factors, instance, and individuals have contributed to America’s current political climate. Discerning which amongst them are of chief importance is difficult, but the ones listed above are perhaps chiefly to blame. The Election of 1968 brought with it sweeping cultural reforms, brash and polarizing candidates, and drove a wedge between conservatives and liberals. The New Left changed the landscape of American politics, influenced the thought of an entire generation, and brought with it a new direction for one of America’s oldest parties. The Election of 2016 was an eruption of hated candidates, scandals, devolving debates, and petty politics.  Understanding the causes of political polarization is essential to solving the issue. As President Abraham Lincoln once said, “[A] house divided against itself cannot stand.” 
