
The political environment in the United States of America has become increasingly hostile, opinionated, and defensive in recent times. I agree with the multitude of scholars and journalists that believe that American politics has become increasingly polarized. Republicans and Democrats have been unable to see or hear other views outside their own on issues, and this has resulted in gridlock in our national, state, and local governments. Instead, the new main objective is to put down the opposing party as quickly as possible instead of working with the other party to reach a solution. American politics has become more about being a “team player” for your party, and despite some claims that Americans have not in fact become polarized, recent intense partisan disagreement has resulted in heated arguments (as seen in the media and in focus groups), violence, vandalism, and not only frustration between Republicans and Democrats, but frustration at both major parties. Some are already counting down the days until Donald Trump’s presidency is potentially over – which will only continue the political divide in the United States.

In a recent study conducted by the Pew Research Center, Democrats and Republicans showed immense disapproval of each other. The study found that seventy percent of Democrats view Republicans as more closed-minded than “other Americans” (Lauter 2016) and fifty-two percent of Republicans view Democrats as more closed minded than other Americans. Forty-five percent of Republicans view Democrats as dishonest, whereas forty-two percent of Democrats see Republicans as dishonest. Forty-seven percent of Democrats are just plain angry with Republicans, and forty-six percent of Republicans feel this way about Democrats (Lauter 2016). These are hard, indisputable statistics that show that America is currently politically divided. Over half of the participants in each party say that they disapprove of the other party in some way in multiple aspects of the study, whether it is with the other party directly or compared to other Americans. When study participants who are regularly active in their party’s activities – people who donate, regularly watch debates, or volunteer in some way – are taken into account, the findings get even worse, with higher majorities disapproving of the opposite party. 

Republicans and Democrats also will not compromise. Six in ten of both Republicans and Democrats said that their party should get what it wants. The divide already hampers any potential bipartisan political action in the United States, but research showing that each side is unwilling to compromise dooms it. This fact that each party believes that they should get what they want contributed to the gridlock in the federal government when Barack Obama was in office, and already has contributed to Democrats’ unwillingness to work with a Republican controlled federal government under the Trump administration. Why do members of the two major political parties disagree with each other so much? Sixty-eight percent of Republicans and sixty-two percent of Democrats say that the other major party’s ideas are “bad for the country”. One in five Democrats and one in six Republicans said that the opposing party had “a lot” or at least “some” good ideas. Four in ten Republicans and a solid third of Democrats said that the opposing policy had almost no good ideas (Lauter 2016). These views of the opposing party only create opinionated partisans. 

A few months before the 2016 presidential election, Pacific NW Magazine contributor Tyrone Beason attended a Donald Trump rally in Lynden, Washington. Because the venue only held a small amount of people, crowds of others stood along a road outside. Trump supporters were on one side, Trump protesters were on the other side, and a line of police officers stood as a human wall between them. Beason goes on to communicate with some of the protesters, and some of the supporters. One even confirms that the reason she is there is to be against Donald Trump passionately, and not to passionately support a candidate for the job. The two sides continue to clash with one another, more or less peacefully. Protesters accuse Trump of being racist and being xenophobic, while Trump supporters engage in verbal fights with protesters, one saying simply that “Hillary sucks!”. This is just one rally where the two ends of the political spectrum clashed with each other. Trump hosted hundreds of rallies, with each of which having the potential for political clashes like the one that occurred in Lynden. The amount of disapproval between the two parties makes it probable that they clashed at other Trump rallies around the country. This only worsened the divide, especially when there were attendees who had not decided on a candidate (not that the candidates had great favorability ratings in the first place, Bernie Sanders included) but made the trip for the sole purpose of decrying Donald Trump. 

Shortly before the 2016 presidential election, Republican pollster Frank Luntz hosted an hour long focus group to get an idea of how angry they were with the 2016 candidates, campaigns, and race. The nature of the group showed that its participants were in fact very angry. Mr. Luntz lost control within minutes, and noted that this has been the worst group he had ever hosted. An immense amount of disagreement, bitterness, and hostility was shown. One participant even noted that the country is politically divided and some participants seemed to even dispute this claim. Luntz made the point that people could not stop talking over each other, raising their voices at each other, and attacking each other in general (CBS News 2016). This lack of civility by the participants is a real world example of the current political split that the United States is in and its effects. Frank Luntz said that this focus group was the most uncivil focus group he had ever hosted because this is the most divided the United States has ever been. Without this divide, this focus group may have gone more productively, or it might not even exist. It may have been like Luntz’s previous focus groups, where the participants treated each other with respect and let each person speak without interruption, even if they disagreed. All this focus group does is prove that real people in the real world are extremely intolerant of those who differ from them politically. 

In reviewing the footage from Frank Luntz’s focus group, it can be inferred that some of the participants felt that if someone supported a certain candidate, that person and their perspectives should be dismissed. Differing political ideologies created intense hostility, and the desire to fiercely defend that ideology. There are many theories and ideas on what caused the great political divide that the United States is currently in. Patrick R. Miller and Pamela Johnston Conover argue in their article entitled Red and Blue States of Mind: Partisan Hostility and Voting in the United States that these combatting ideologies create political teams with an “us-them” mentality (Miller, Johnston Conover 2015). One team is the Democrats and the other team is the Republicans. They argue that team members feel the need to protect their team’s image by campaigning, voting, and hopefully, winning. Losing means a crushing defeat for the team’s political power in general and their ability to rule over the opposing team. The unified ideology-sharing members of one team view the members of the other team as foes that cannot ever be trusted as opposed to presenting legislation that is the product of a compromise between the two teams. This distrustful team mentality is evident everywhere in today’s political landscape. Neither party trusts the other party and very rarely is bipartisan legislation ever passed. This is because there is a constant power struggle between the two parties and when one party is in power, the minority party is very largely unwilling to work with them. It is a cycle that will repeat and not stop until something is done about the current political split, whether the gap is actually bridged or another solution is found. 

Lynn Vavreck would probably agree with Miller and Johnston Conover on what has caused American political polarization. She claims that it is caused by wholly opposing viewpoints on various recent issues, like the confederate flag, police behavior, and even social issues relating to awards ceremonies and sports. Vavreck contends that up until the end of 2015, most Americans were happy, because of the country’s recovery from the Great Recession. The percentage of Americans happy with the progress grew by the month. The job market was satisfactory, the unemployment rate was falling, and the GDP was growing (Vavreck 2016). However, Americans as a whole became more angry toward the end of 2015, with politics being the source. Less and less Americans trusted the federal government, less people approved of Barack Obama, and less were happy with the direction the country was heading in. The same partisan camps had been created, which in turn created the same outward distrust and hostility toward members of the opposite party that Miller and Johnston Conover highlighted. It is Vavreck’s view that these immensely different opinions on these issues at least in part caused the creation of political teams, which in turn would cause the teams to unify and rail against each other. 

No one likes to be wrong. Once a person develops a view on an issue, they do not want it to be challenged in any way. This is why, according to Lauren Griffin and Annie Neimand, that Americans will believe something that positively presents their political ideals, even if it is not true. Griffin and Neimand use Republicans’ incorrect belief that the unemployment rate went up during Barack Obama’s presidency and the majority of Democrats’ belief that Russians absolutely had a direct influence in the 2016 election when there is no proof of this as examples. When presented with new data that contradicts a person’s political views, that person will choose to simply dismiss it (Griffin, Neimand 2017). This is more evidence that Democrats and Republicans are very opinionated and on political “teams”, as Miller and Johnston Conover covered. Information that challenges an opinionated partisan’s view not only makes the individual partisan look bad, but it also makes other partisans in the unified party and therefore the party itself look bad, especially when politicians repeat false information. More ridicule between the two camps will ensue each time one is caught even entertaining information that is or has been proven to be false, which will lead to even more of an unwillingness to compromise and to more of the distrust that Miller and Johnston Conover highlighted. 

However, despite extensive past research proving that Democrats and Republicans are two distrusting teams that are at each other’s throats, some still do not agree that Americans have become more polarized, and not even in recent years (Miller, Johnston Conover 2015). Seth Hill and Chris Tausanovitch debunk the Pew Research study and claim that scholars do not agree that Americans are more polarized. Their research concludes that the political ideals of Americans have not grown farther apart over the past sixty years. Hill and Tausanovitch argue that people tend to think of party sorting as polarization, and that the Pew Research study was about the former and not the latter. Party sorting is when there is not a mix of liberals and conservatives in each party. In modern times, most conservatives are Republicans and most liberals are Democrats – the parties have sorted (Hill, Tausanovitch 2015). The authors claim that while party sorting may have occurred, polarization – the views and ideals of Democrats and Republicans becoming even more different – has not occurred with the general public, but has in Congress. 

Richard H. Pildes disputes this, saying that party sorting has most definitely occurred – but extreme polarization has also. Pildes highlights three potential causes for polarization – persons, history, and institutions. First, Pildes claims that higher up leaders, such as those same Congressional leaders highlighted by Hill and Tausanovitch, contribute to polarization. He argues that, in a perfect world, we would elect leaders who have a desire to compromise. A heavily polarized electorate during George W. Bush’s bid for reelection is cited as a factor in what causes polarization, and Pildes uses this to make the claim that influential factors like this electorate are at least part of what has caused the unusual amount of polarization the United States is currently experiencing (Pildes 2011). 

Secondly, Pildes cites large historical acts of Congress, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as a cause for polarization. Pildes claims that the Voting Rights Act made the parties sort, and that party sorting causes polarization. Previously, there had been liberal and conservative Democrats and liberal and conservative Republicans in the South. The only way to get any legislation passed was for two of the four types of politicians to compromise (Pildes 2011). This political system began its demise with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

Finally, Pildes argues that very small legal changes contribute to political polarization. He thinks that though we cannot (and do not want to) control the large factors that contribute to polarization, such as a divided electorate, we can manipulate these factors in certain ways through minor action. Three specific actors are named in the influence of American political polarization: primaries, gerrymandering, and the House and Senate being in the control of party leaders (Pildes 2011). Despite the positive intent of primaries, they tend to have a lesser turnout than general elections, and those who vote are among the most involved and opinionated in relation to their political parties – or teams. Most primaries are closed and only allow ideological voters. Therefore, most winners of closed primaries are very opinionated in relation to their party, which then contributes to extremely ideological officeholding (Pildes 2011). 

Many, many theories on what causes political division and polarization have been developed, but there are also various theories on how to overcome and solve it. Pildes claims that political leaders cause polarization, citing the encouragement of partisan conflict by party leaders Newt Gingrich, Nancy Pelosi, and John Boehner. It is suggested that customs in the House and Senate can be changed to consolidate party and political leaders. The chambers could weaken party leaders by stripping their power – this was already proven to be effective during the post-Reconstruction era (Pildes 2011). Independent redistricting and establishing open primaries more widely are also solutions that Pildes presents. 

On the other hand, Micah L. Sifry presents a more obscure solution to the political division. His idea is to create an entirely new party to combat the issue, with reliance on the practice of fusion. Fusion allows multiple political parties to support one candidate and retain their identities, to the point that each party’s votes for the candidate are counted separately. He references a previous New Party movement, in which both Republicans and Democrats supported Democratic presidential candidates while retaining their partisan identities (Sifry 2002). Local Democratic and independent candidates were supported through New Party chapters, and most local candidates who were endorsed by the party won their races. This all showed that an independent political party could make headway in local politics. Though the party split up due to differing views of 2000 presidential candidate Ralph Nader, Sifry believes that the national political division problem can be solved with another New Party movement and fusion. 

Without a doubt, the American political environment has drastically changed in recent times. Democrats and Republicans are now more polarized and divided than ever. This is evident through hard statistics, and in the real world at political functions. The political environment has become negative, intolerant, and bigoted. Putting down the other party instead of working with them has become the new main objective, due to the development of extremely defensive political teams and because of activities inside our own federal government.  It is up to us to end this political division one way or another. We must be willing to sacrifice our pride and our power. Intense face to face arguing is not the answer. Protecting your party’s image at all costs is not the answer. Attending the rallies of presidential candidates for the sole purpose of fighting against them and their supporters is not the answer. Working together and compromising is what we must do. Future generations and the future of this nation depend on it, and if they suffer because of our incompetence, we only have ourselves to blame. 
